scope of their employment

In May 1984, Clarence Greathouse, working as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, arranged to sell a kilogram of cocaine to Angelo Lonardo. Lonardo agreed that he would find individuals to distribute the drug. When the sale became imminent, Lonardo stated in a tape-recorded telephone conversation that he had a "gentleman friend" who had some questions to ask about the cocaine. In a subsequent telephone call, Greathouse spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the drug and the price. Greathouse then spoke again with Lonardo, and the two arranged the details of the purchase. They agreed that the sale would take place in a designated hotel parking lot, and Lonardo would transfer the drug from Greathouse's car to the "friend," who would be waiting in the parking lot in his own car. Greathouse proceeded with the transaction as planned. FBI agents arrested Lonardo and petitioner immediately after Lonardo placed a kilogram of cocaine into petitioner's car in the hotel parking lot. In petitioner's car, the agents found over $20,000 in cash. Petitioner was charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Petitioner was also charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The Government introduced, over petitioner's objection, Angelo Lonardo's telephone statements regarding the participation of the "friend" in the transaction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found that, considering the events in the parking lot and Lonardo's statements over the telephone, the Government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy involving Lonardo and petitioner existed. The court also found that Lonardo's statements over the telephone had been made in the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Accordingly, the trial court held that Lonardo's out-of-court statements satisfied Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and were not hearsay. Petitioner was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 15 years. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the admission of the recorded statements and related evidentiary and constitutional questions.

The United States prosecuted Buffalo Pharmacal Company, Inc., and its president and general manager Joseph Dotterweich by two informations consolidated for trial under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938. The company operated as a jobber purchasing drugs from manufacturers and shipping them repacked under its own label in interstate commerce. Three counts reached the jury, consisting of two charges for shipping misbranded drugs in interstate commerce and one charge for shipping an adulterated drug. The jury disagreed regarding the corporation but convicted Dotterweich on all three counts. The Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the evidence adequately supported the findings of adulteration and misbranding. It reversed Dotterweich's conviction, however, on the ground that only the corporation qualified as the person subject to prosecution under the Act. After rehearing, the Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the construction of the statute limiting liability to the corporation.