A statement by a co-conspirator of a party is not barred by the hearsay rule from being admitted against the party if the statement was made by the co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Cf. Los Angeles News Service v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 305 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding, in plaintiff independent newsgathering organization's action against defendant broadcasting company for copyright infringement, that the trial court....Not every human utterance is capable of amounting to hearsay. Only an utterance that contains an assertion can amount to a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a) or hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c).

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004) ("Finally, we reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of....The admission of a statement made other than at the trial does not violate the right of confrontation guaranteed to a criminal defendant by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the maker of the statement -- the declarant -- testifies at the trial.

United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 769, 777-778 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the ATF purchase form under the residual hearsay exception because all the requirements have been met,....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.