The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARVIN E. ASPEN
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
Defendants Pasquale "Pat" Marcy ("Marcy") and Fred Roti ("Roti") have moved to redact portions of the 11-4-07 Cooley/Moy tape recorded conversation and to preclude admission of the 6-22-89, 13:29 telephone conversation between Roti, Marcy, and Alderman Banks ("Banks"). For the reasons set forth below, we grant in part and deny in part the defendants' motion to redact portions of the Cooley/Moy conversation and deny Marcy's motion to preclude admission of the telephone conversation.
A. The Cooley/Moy Conversation
Defendants have moved to redact five portions of the taped conversation. Because the government has no objection to redacting three of these sections, only two remain at issue.
The first contested segment of the 11-4-87 Cooley/Moy conversation involves the mention of Judge Thomas Maloney and an attempt to fix the outcome of the Hawkins case -- an El Rukn trial. Conversation at pp. 2-4. Defendants argue that introduction of an alleged attempt to fix another case is irrelevant and prejudicial. The government claims that the conversation demonstrates Moy's involvement in the Chow fix and is admissible as a statement against Moy's penal interest. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). Because the defendants have not challenged the conversation's admissibility on other grounds, the question is whether the interchange is relevant.
Here, the government asserts that this entire exchange is relevant because it provides statements in a context which demonstrate Moy's involvement in the Chow fix.
At most, however, the exchange establishes that Moy recognized Judge Maloney's name and remembered that he presided over the Chow case. This, by itself, is not enough to establish involvement in fixing that case. Moreover, while Cooley makes statements regarding the details of the Chow fix, Moy does not affirm those statements. Instead, Moy simply asks if Judge Maloney is in trouble now. Again, this does not tend to establish Moy's involvement in the fix. Because there is no connection to this case, then, this segment is not relevant to the charges at hand and must be redacted.
Defendants, however, argue that even if the conversation is admissible, Moy's statement that he thinks Roti got Cooley's name from Pat Marcy should be redacted. Conversation at p. 9. Defendants contend that the statement is legally irrelevant, Fed. R. Evid. 401-402, that Moy lacked personal knowledge of how Roti got Cooley's name, Fed. R. Evid. 602, that it constitutes an inadmissible lay opinion, Fed. R. Evid. 701, and that the government fails to demonstrate that his statement was made during the course of, or in furtherance of, the conspiracy, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). For its part, the government offers the entire conversation as a statement against interest.
We begin by observing that there is nothing in the sentence at issue which so tends to subject Moy to criminal liability that he would only have made it if he believed it to be true. Moreover, although the sentence is part of a larger statement against interest, and may arguably provide background and be brushed with the indicia of reliability, it is appropriate to parse a larger statement to exclude those portions which do not qualify as statements against interest under 804(b)(3). See United States v. Porter, 881 F.2d 878, 882-83 (10th Cir. 1989).
We turn, then, to the defendants' objections. First, the statement is clearly relevant, in that it can be used to link Marcy to the Chow fix and to shed light on the structure of the conspiracy. However, defendants correctly point out that there is no evidence suggesting that Moy has personal knowledge of how Roti got Cooley's name. Without such evidence, the statement is inadmissible hearsay. Nor is there anything to suggest that it is an admissible lay opinion. Finally, this is not a statement made within the course of, or in furtherance of, the conspiracy to fix the Chow case. The objectives of that conspiracy were long past accomplished, and this statement does not involve an effort to hide the conspiracy. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Accordingly, without evidence demonstrating that ...