Summary of United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 (1986)
Facts: D was convicted for conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. At trial, prosecution introduced statement made by D’s coconspirators which the police had legally recorded. These statements were admitted under FRE 801(d)(2)(E). D claimed that since the coconspirators were available to provide live testimony, the use of statements was a violation of the confrontational clause.
Issue: Was the admission of statements of co-conspirators proper even though the declarants were available to testify?
Rationale: The unavailability rule is usually applied because live testimony is more accurate and reliable then out of court statements. But in the case of statements of co-conspirators, out of court statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy are really important and cannot be replicated in a live in-court testimony. Furthermore, requiring all co-conspirators to testify in court will place a lot of burden on the system. Therefore, the statements were properly admitted.