There are at least two good responses:
A) The words are not an assertion, but have independent legal significance because they constitute "acts" furthering the conspiracy.
B) The last part is not an assertion but a request.
If you responded that this was a co-conspirator statement (an admission by the defendant), give yourself part credit. The problem is that we have no idenpendent proof of the conspiracy yet, only Middle man's (hearsay) word for it.
The copt then testifies that Middle Man said Dealer always wears a top hat.
If the defense objects and moves to strike as hearsay, what response?
When you think you know the answer, click here to continue.