United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19

Ciresi, a 78-year-old North Providence attorney, was convicted after a jury trial of bribery, extortion, and conspiracy tied to a scheme to purchase votes of three town councilmen on two zoning matters.
The government sought to admit coconspirator statements made by Zambarano to Caranci as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
The district court provisionally admitted these statements and later ruled them admissible as nonhearsay; Ciresi challenged on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds.
The two bribes were the supermarket bribe ($25,000 total; Ciresi’s share $4,000) and the mill bribe ($75,000).
Zambarano’s recorded statements described how Ciresi brokered the supermarket deal and planned/structured the mill deal, establishing ongoing conspiracy involvement.
During sentencing, the court held Ciresi accountable for both bribes totaling $100,000 (erroneously stated as $107,000 on the judgment); the error required correction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zambarano’s statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)	Ciresi challenged the Petrozziello ruling and argues statements weren’t in furtherance.	Ciresi contends the statements were not properly admitted as coconspirator admissions.	Yes; statements were in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy and admissible.
Whether admission violated the Confrontation Clause	Ciresi argues lack of cross-examination due to nontestifying declarant.	Ciresi relies on Crawford and post-Crawford dicta to require exclusion.	No constitutional error; coconspirator statements are nontestimonial and not subject to Confrontation Clause.
Whether the two bribes constituted a single conspiracy; withdrawal issue	Ciresi claims separate conspiracies or withdrawal negates liability for the mill bribe.	Mill bribe conducted within same overall scheme; withdrawal not clearly established.	Single continuing conspiracy; withdrawal not proven to terminate liability for mill-bribe statements.
Whether Ciresi’s sentence properly counted both bribes and the total amount	Ciresi argues only the supermarket bribe should count; mill-bribe should be excluded.	Ciresi was actively involved in both bribery phases; counts justified.	Counts for both bribes upheld; total properly used; error in written judgment to be corrected to $100,000.

United States v. Diaz, 670 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2012) (Rule 801(d)(2)(E) coconspirator statements; burden of proof; Petrozziello standard)
United States v. Famania-Roche, 537 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2008) (Petrozziello framework for admissibility of statements)
United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2002) (Petrozziello ruling; admissibility process for coconspirator statements)
United States v. Avilés-Colón, 536 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (Preservation and review of Petrozziello rulings; reliance on coconspirator conduct)
United States v. Rivera-Donate, 682 F.3d 120 (1st Cir. 2012) (Confrontation Clause; coconspirator statements nontestimonial)
United States v. De La Paz-Rentas, 613 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2010) (Nontestimonial nature of coconspirator remarks)
United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) (Statements that reassure conspirators further conspiratorial ends)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (S. Ct. 2006) (Confrontation Clause limits to testimonial statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (2011) (Contextual approach to testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
United States v. Pelletier, 845 F.2d 1126 (1st Cir. 1988) (Conspirator statements in furtherance of conspiracy)
United States v. Juodakis, 834 F.2d 1099 (1st Cir. 1987) (Withdrawal from conspiracy requires explicit abandonment)
United States v. Mardian, 546 F.2d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (Withdrawal standards for conspiracies)