With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sr.’s own statements to Jones, as testified to by Jones, would be nonhearsay because they are Frazier, Sr.’s own admissions and were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). Frazier, Sr. also argues that Officer Leyshock’s testimony concerning the information Jones supplied to him was inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because Jones’s statements to Officer Leyshock were not in furtherance of the conspiracy. We agree that Jones’s out-of-court statements as related by Officer Leyshock do not fall within the coconspirator rule, although any error in admitting them was harmless because Jones himself testified in detail about the information he provided to Officer Leyshock and was subject to cross examination about it. See United States v. Melecio-Rodriguez, 231 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1024, 121 S.Ct. 1968,

A: holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony
B: holding that statements by a cooperating coconspirator to known authorities made after the commencement of cooperation are not admissible under rule 801d2e because such statements are not made in furtherance of the conspiracy
C: holding that post arrest statements made by coconspirator to law enforcement officer were not admissible under rule 801d2e but admission of testimony was harmless because officers testimony was cumulative
D: holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative
C.