for playing the tapes were legitimate and the tapes would eliminate the need for T.S. to testify a second time. Defense counsel responded: “Right.” 3 Rule 801(d)(1)(B) provides that a statement is not hearsay when the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is “consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.” 4 For this reason, we need not address defendant’s argument that the recorded statements were inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). 5 Defendant does not claim that defense counsel did not have the power to waive his right to confront witnesses against him. See generally New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 114 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Many courts allow defense counsel to waive
holding that rights under vienna convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel recognizing a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver of constitutional rights by counsel although certain fundamental rights require personal waiver by defendant recognizing conditions of release may curtail certain fundamental rights holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary