court noted, Morrison’s “statement reflects that he has a history of taking pleasure from having intercourse with women without their sober consent” and that “[t]his statement indicates disrespect for women in general and connects this gender disrespect to sexual intercourse.” Brzonkala II, 935 F.Supp. at 785. In addition, since Brzonkala alleged that Morrison and Crawford engaged in a conspiracy to rape her, Morrison’s comments are also relevant in assessing Crawford’s liability. See Loughman v. Consol-Pennsylvania Coal Co., 6 F.3d 88, 103 (3rd Cir.1993) (concluding that in a civil conspiracy “every conspirator is jointly and severally liable for all acts of co-conspirators taken in furtherance of the conspiracy”); United States v. Carpenter, 961 F.2d 824, 828 n. 3 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 111
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 holding that statements made to keep a coconspirator informed as to the groups drug supply were made in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that acts and statements in furtherance of the conspiracy may be attributed to a coconspirator and citing pinkerton v united states 328 us 640 64647 66 sct 1180 118384 90 led 1489 1946 holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy