... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” With regard to Rule 801(d)(2), this Court has explained: According to State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137, 144, 298 S.E.2d 110, 117 (1982), “evidence of acts or declarations of co-conspirators or co-actors is admissible only if a proper foundation, or prima facie ease, is established.... The required foundation consists of: (1) proof of a conspiracy existing between the declarant and the defendant; and (2) proof that the act or declaration was made during and in pursuance of the conspiracy or joint enterprise. (Citation omitted.)” See Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 176-81, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2779-82, 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 153-56 (1987) (<HOLDING>); State v. Nixon, 178 W.Va. 338, [342], 359
holding the fedrevid 801d2e requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that in addition to the elements of the substantive violation a rico conspiracy requires proof of the additional element of an agreement recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is the quantum of proof in civil cases holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence