United States v. Larry Hyman
699 F. App'x 902
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Larry Hyman was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 371 for conspiring to embezzle Social Security benefits payable to William Burroughs.
- Burroughs died in 2005 but SSA continued depositing benefits into a joint bank account held by Burroughs and Hyman through 2014.
- Co-defendant Gussie Scott placed a call to the SSA posing as Burroughs’s niece and implied Burroughs was alive; the call came from Scott’s phone number according to the SSA agent.
- Hyman gave a voluntary interview to an SSA agent describing a long-term personal and business relationship with Scott and confirmed he continued withdrawing funds after Scott’s call.
- At trial the government introduced Scott’s phone calls to the SSA as co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); Hyman challenged their admissibility on appeal.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy and that Scott’s statements were made in furtherance of it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of co‑conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) | Govt: Court properly admitted Scott’s SSA calls as co‑conspirator statements supported by circumstantial evidence | Hyman: No evidence that Scott and Hyman were in a conspiracy when statements were made or that statements furthered a conspiracy | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; circumstantial evidence supported existence of conspiracy and that statements furthered it |
| Standard of proof for preliminary Rule 801(d)(2)(E) findings | Govt: preponderance of evidence supports preliminary factual findings | Hyman: disputes factual predicate for admission | Affirmed — Eleventh Circuit applies preponderance standard and reviews for clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (preponderance standard for preliminary facts under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Christopher, 923 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1991) (elements for admitting co‑conspirator statements)
- United States v. Thomas, 8 F.3d 1552 (11th Cir. 1993) (association with conspirators as evidentiary factor)
- United States v. Byrom, 910 F.2d 725 (11th Cir. 1990) (court may rely on information provided by co‑conspirator’s proffered statement)
- United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1998) (liberal standard for determining if a statement was made in furtherance of a conspiracy)