United States v. Breitkreutz
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
977 F.2d 214 (1992)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A federal jury convicted Frank Breitkreutz (defendant) of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Breitkreutz’s wife, Janet Breitkreutz, and five men were indicted as Breitkreutz’s coconspirators. At Breitkreutz’s trial, two of the men testified that Breitkreutz had supplied them with about 40 pounds of methamphetamine. The government (plaintiff) also presented physical evidence seized from two of the Breitkreutzes’ houses, including cash, firearms, large amounts of chemicals used to produce methamphetamine, a book detailing how to produce methamphetamine, glassware used to produce methamphetamine, and several pages of handwritten notes. One of the pages, admitted at trial as Exhibit M-21, was seized from Janet’s purse. Exhibit M-21 listed several chemicals and items of equipment traditionally used to produce methamphetamine in addition to names and number notations (e.g., “Dave(2) 8, 9”). The government argued that Exhibit M-21 and other pages were drug ledgers used to track sales, receipts, and other calculations related to methamphetamine production. Breitkreutz appealed, arguing in relevant part that the district court had erred by admitting Exhibit M-21 under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), often referred to as the coconspirator’s exclusion to the rule against hearsay, because the author of the statements in Exhibit M-21 was unknown.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ryan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
