Full opinion text
SELYA, Circuit Judge. These appeals present a hothouse of efflorescent issues set against a backdrop composed of roughly equal parts of drugs, money, and mayhem. Two of those issues — one impheating the Confrontation Clause and the other involving Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c) — raise important questions of first impression in this circuit. In the pages that follow, we offer a skeletal outline of the case and then put flesh on the bones by addressing, first, the appellants’ two flagship claims. We next consider a series of discovery disputes and conclude by discussing, albeit in a more abbreviated fashion, a laundry list of other asseverations. In the end, after careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and close perscrutation of the compendious record, we affirm the judgments below in large part, but reverse one defendant’s conviction on three related counts and bring a contingent sentencing determination to closure. I. BACKGROUND Overcoming the temptation to engage in Homeric recitation of the riveting facts that emerged during a seventy-day trial, we opt instead to sketch the evidence at this juncture and reserve greater detail until the need arises to place specific issues into workable context. We draw our sketch in colors that coordinate with the jury’s verdicts, consistent with record support. See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1063, 113 S.Ct. 1005, 122 L.Ed.2d 154 (1993). For nearly four years Michael Fitzgerald and John Houlihan ran a ruthlessly efficient drug ring from an unlikely command post: Kerrigan’s Flower Shop, Charlestown, Massachusetts. The organization commanded the allegiance of numerous distributors, stationary and mobile, including Jennierose Lynch, William “Bud” Sweeney, George Sargent, and Alan Skinner. These minions, and others like them, helped the organization supply cocaine to hordes of buyers through an elaborate street-level distribution network that arranged most of its sales with the aid of electronic pagers, assigned customer codes, and preset rendezvous points. Fitzgerald and Houlihan imposed a strict code of silence on all who came into contact with them, including their own troops. They dealt severely with persons who seemed inclined to talk too freely. Joseph Nardone, a professional assassin who bragged that he was the “headache man” — when the organization’s chieftains had a headache, Nardone got rid of it — acted as the principal enforcer. Over time, the gang’s targets included Sargent, Sweeney (who survived multiple attempts on his life, but was left paralyzed from the chest down), a rival drug dealer, James Boyden III, and the latter’s son and helpmeet, James Boyden IV. The Fitzgerald-Houlihan axis dominated the Charlestown scene through 1993. Ultimately, the authorities broke the code of silence and a federal grand jury indicted twelve individuals (including Fitzgerald, Houlihan, and Nardone) on a myriad of charges. After trial, the two ringleaders and their enforcer were found guilty of engaging in a racketeering enterprise (count 1), racketeering conspiracy (count 2), conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering (counts 5, 7 & 9), and conspiracy to distribute cocaine (count 20). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) & (d), 1959(a); 21 U.S.C. § 846. The jury also convicted Fitzgerald and Houlihan of aiding and abetting murder and attempted murder in aid of racketeering (counts 6, 8,11 & 12), instigating murder for hire (counts 15, 16 & 17), engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (count 19), and distributing cocaine (counts 21 through 29). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a), 1958; 21 U.S.C. §§ 848, 841(a)(1). The jury found Nardone guilty of murder and attempted murder in aid of racketeering (counts 6, 8, 11 & 12), see 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to crimes of violence (counts 39, 40, 42 & 43), see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The jury also returned special forfeiture verdicts. See 18 U.S.C. § 1963; 21 U.S.C. § 853. The district court sentenced each defendant to multiple terms of life imprisonment. These appeals blossomed. II. THE VOICE FROM THE GRAVE The district court admitted over objection portions of hearsay statements made by George Sargent on the theory that Sargent’s murder constituted a waiver of the Confrontation Clause vis-a-vis the murderers. Houlihan and Nardone assign error to this order and to a salmagundi of related rulings. A. Setting the Stage. Sargent served as a distributor for the Fitzgerald-Houlihan organization. The police arrested him twice during 1992 on drug-trafficking charges. Both times, Sargent made voluntary statements that inculpated Fitzgerald and Houlihan in a sprawling drug conspiracy and tended to link them with several murders. The statements also furnished evidence probative of the elements of the offenses with which Nardone had been charged, but Sargent did not mention him by name. On June 28, 1992 — within a month after he gave the second statement — Sargent was ambushed outside his dwelling and was shot several times. He died as a result. The government filed a pretrial motion for an order (1) authorizing a state trooper, Mark Lemieux, to testify about Sargent’s statements following his March 1992 arrest, and (2) permitting the jury to hear a redacted version of the taped May 1992 interview conducted by Boston police detectives following Sargent’s second arrest. The government argued that the appellants — who had been charged with Sargent’s murder— waived their rights to object to the admission of his out-of-court statements on either Confrontation Clause or hearsay grounds when they successfully conspired to execute him for the express purpose of preventing his cooperation with the authorities. The district court took the motion under advisement and, near the end of the government’s case in chief, admitted the challenged evidence against Houlihan and Nardone, but not Fitzgerald, see supra note 2, concluding that the government had shown by clear and convincing evidence that those defendants conspired to kill Sargent at least in part for the purpose of preventing him from cooperating with the police, and that such actions were tantamount to a knowing waiver of their confrontation rights. See United States v. Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. 352, 363-65 (D.Mass.1995). B. Waiver by Homicide: The Confrontation Clause. To resolve Houlihan’s and Nardone’s main objections, we must decide whether a defendant waives his rights under the Confrontation Clause by murdering a potential witness to prevent that witness from turning state’s evidence and/or testifying against him at trial. We believe that he does. It is apodictic that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him-” U.S. Const. Amend. VI. This trial right is designed to assure defendants of a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against them, see, e.g., Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1434, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); United States v. Laboy-Delgado, 84 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir.1996), thereby enhancing the jury’s ability to separate fact from fiction. Though the Confrontation Clause is a cornerstone of our adversary system of justice, it is not an absolute; there are circumstances in which the prosecution may introduce an unsworn out-of-court statement without procuring the declarant’s presence at trial. See, e.g., Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1205-07 (1st Cir.1987) (discussing exception for spontaneous exclamations), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S.Ct. 1297, 99 L.Ed.2d 506 (1988). Moreover, a defendant may waive his right to confrontation by knowing and intentional relinquishment. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) (holding that a guilty plea is an express waiver of the constitutional right to confrontation); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). While a waiver of the right to confront witnesses typically is express, the law is settled that a defendant also may waive it through his intentional misconduct. See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 20, 94 S.Ct. 194, 196, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973) (finding such a waiver when a defendant boycotted his trial); Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) (ruling that a defendant waives the right to confrontation by engaging in disruptive behavior requiring his removal from the courtroom during the trial). By the same token, courts will not suffer a party to profit by his own wrongdoing. Thus, a defendant who wrongfully procures a witness’s absence for the purpose of denying the government that witness’s testimony waives his right under the Confrontation Clause to object to the admission of the absent witness’s hearsay statements. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 145, 158, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878) (holding that the defendant’s refusal to disclose the whereabouts of a witness constituted such a waiver); Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1201-02 (6th Cir.1982) (holding that a defendant who silences a witness by exploiting an intimate relationship waives the right to confrontation), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1053, 103 S.Ct. 1501, 1502, 75 L.Ed.2d 932 (1983); United States v. Balano, 618 F.2d 624, 629 (10th Cir.1979) (concluding that a defendant waives his confrontation right by threatening a witness’s life and bringing about the witness’s silence), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 840, 101 S.Ct. 118, 66 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1358-60 (8th Cir.1976) (similar), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977). Moreover, it is sufficient in this regard to show that .the evildoer was motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness; the intent to deprive the prosecution of testimony need not be the actor’s sole motivation. Cf. United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir.1990) (stating that the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was “prompted, at least in part,” by the requisite corrupt motive). Houlihan and Nardone argue, however, that the waiver-by-misconduct doctrine, even if good law, should not be employed here because Sargent was not an actual witness— no charges had been lodged against Houlihan or Nardone at the time of Sargent’s murder, and no grand jury had as yet been convened—but at most a turncoat cooperating with the police. Thus, they could not have been on notice that they were waiving a trial right. We find this argument unpersuasive. Although the reported cases all appear to involve actual witnesses, see, e.g., United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 798 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 456, 130 L.Ed.2d 364 & — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 496, 130 L.Ed.2d 406 (1994); United States v. Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d 269, 271-72 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204, 104 S.Ct. 2385, 81 L.Ed.2d 343 (1984), we can discern no principled reason why the waiver-by-misconduct doctrine should not apply with equal force if a defendant intentionally silences a potential witness. When a defendant murders an individual who is a percipient witness to acts of criminality (or procures his demise) in order to prevent him from appearing at an upcoming trial, he denies the government the benefit of the witness’s live testimony. In much the same way, when a defendant murders such a witness (or procures his demise) in order to prevent him from assisting an ongoing criminal investigation, he is denying the government the benefit of the witness’s live testimony at a future trial. In short, the two situations are fair congeners: as long as it is reasonably foreseeable that the investigation will culminate in the bringing of charges, the mere fact that the homicide occurs at an earlier step in the pavane should not affect the operation of the waiver-by-misconduct doctrine. Indeed, adopting the contrary position urged by the appellants would serve as a prod to the unscrupulous to accelerate the timetable and murder suspected snitches sooner rather than later. We see no justification for creating such a perverse incentive, or for distinguishing between a defendant who assassinates a witness on the eve of trial and a potential defendant who assassinates a potential witness before charges officially have been brought. In either case, it is the intent to silence that provides notice. We therefore hold that when a person who eventually emerges as a defendant (1) causes a potential witness’s unavailability (2) by a wrongful act (3) undertaken with the intention of preventing the potential witness from testifying at a future trial, then the defendant waives his right to object on confrontation grounds to the admission of the unavailable declarant’s out-of-court statements at trial. Before applying this holding to the case at hand, we must correctly calibrate the quantum of proof. The lower court, paying obeisance to United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 629-30 (5th Cir. Unit B), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008, 102 S.Ct. 2300, 73 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1982), adopted the minority view and decided that the government must prove the predicate facts essential to the waiver by “clear and convincing” evidence. Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. at 360. This sets too high a standard. Unlike the Fifth Circuit, we think that the government need only prove such predicate facts by a preponderance of the evidence. The Thevis court compared the waiver-by-misconduct problem to the admissibility of in-court identifications that follow tainted out-of-court identifications. See, e.g., United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1939, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) (requiring government to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence in such circumstances that the proposed in-court identification has a reliable independent basis). With respect, we believe the better comparison is to the admission of out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). To invoke the coconspirator exception, the proponent of the statement must “show by a preponderance of the evidence” certain predicate facts, namely, “that a conspiracy embracing both the declarant and the defendant existed, and that the declarant uttered the statement during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1180 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2714, 129 L.Ed.2d 840 (1994); see also Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2778-79, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987). Proving the conditions precedent to the applicability of the coconspirator exception is analytically and functionally identical to proving that a defendant’s wrongdoing waives his rights under the Confrontation Clause. See Steele, 684 F.2d at 1203; United States v. White, 838 F.Supp. 618, 624 (D.D.C.1993). We therefore align ourselves with the majority of federal appellate courts that have considered the question, see, e.g., Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d at 273; Steele, 684 F.2d at 1202-03; Balano, 618 F.2d at 629, and set the government’s burden of proof at the preponderance-of-the-evidence level. Measured against this more conventional benchmark, the district court’s findings easily pass muster. The record amply demonstrates that Houlihan and Nardone knew when they conspired to murder Sargent that they were depriving the government of a potential witness. First, the district court supportably found that they believed Sargent was cooperating with the police and could harm them and the organization by talking. See Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. at 363-64. Second, Sargent was in fact cooperating with law enforcement officials at the time and made two voluntary statements in which he provided detailed accounts of the organization’s modus operandi, descriptions of the principals’ roles in various murders, and a frank admission of his own involvement in the conspiracy. While the defendants’ perception of likely cooperation may well be enough to meet this prong of the test, the fact of Sargent’s cooperation reinforces the inference that the killers believed Sargent was spilling the beans and murdered him on that account. Last but not least, the conspirators knew to a certainty that Sargent had keen insight into their felonious activities both from his own work in the distribution network and from sundry conversations in which they spoke openly to him — in retrospect, too openly — of their participation in serious crimes. This evidentiary foundation sturdily supports the conclusion that Houlihan and Nar-done reasonably could have foreseen Sargent becoming a witness against them and plotted to kill him in order to deprive the government of his firsthand testimony. Hence, the district court did not err in overruling objections to the introduction of portions of Sargent’s out-of-court statements insofar as those objections stemmed from the Confrontation Clause. C. Waiver by Homicide: The Hearsay Objections. Houlihan and Nardone next argue that, even if they waived their confrontation rights, the district court should not have admitted Sargent’s hearsay statements because they were tinged with self-interest (having been made in police custody with a stiff sentence for distributing large quantities of narcotics in prospect) and therefore lacked “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5). On the facts of this case, we agree with the district court, see Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. at 362, 367, that Houlihan’s and Nardone’s misconduct waived not only their confrontation rights but also their hearsay objections, thus rendering a special finding of reliability superfluous. The Supreme Court has yet to plot the crossroads at which the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay principles embedded in the Evidence Rules intersect. The question is subtly nuanced. Though the two bodies of law are not coterminous, they husband essentially the same interests. See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155-56, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1933-34, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). Both attempt to strike a balance between the government’s need for probative evidence and the defendant’s stake in testing the government’s case through cross-examination. See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2538, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). As a result, whether hearsay principles are more or less protective of a defendant’s right to cross-examination than confrontation principles depends on the point at which the balance is struck in any particular instance (recognizing, however, that the balance can be struck at different levels in different cases). See Green, 399 U.S. at 156, 90 S.Ct. at 1934. In this case, we can take matters a step further. In constructing the balance the main interest that must be offset against the government’s need for evidence is the accused’s right to confrontation (for this is the right from which the right to cross-examine springs). Once the confrontation right is lifted from the scales by operation of the accused’s waiver of that right, the balance tips sharply in favor of the need for evidence. See Thai 29 F.3d at 814 (holding that a defendant who waives his confrontation right by wrongfully procuring a witness’s silence also waives hearsay objections vis-a-vis that witness); United States v. Aguiar, 975 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir.1992) (similar); see also Steele, 684 F.2d at 1201 (noting that “English and American courts have consistently relaxed the hearsay rule when the defendant wrongfully causes the witness’ unavailability”). Here, then, inasmuch as Houlihan and Nardone waived their confrontation right by colloguing to murder Sargent, they simultaneously waived their right to object on hearsay grounds to the admission of his out-of-court statements. Hence, the district court appropriately eschewed the request for findings under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5). Houlihan and Nardone have a fallback position. They suggest that the district court’s admission of Sargent’s out-of-court statements violated their rights to due process because the admissions allowed them to be convicted on the basis of unreliable evidence. See Green, 399 U.S. at 163 n. 15, 90 S.Ct. at 1938 n. 15 (ruminating that “considerations of due process, wholly apart from the Confrontation Clause, might prevent convictions where a reliable evidentiary basis is totally lacking”). We reject this initiative. Whatever criticisms justifiably might be levelled against Sargent’s statements, the portions of those statements that Judge Young allowed into evidence are not so unreliable as to raise due process concerns. Other evidence abundantly corroborates (and in many instances replicates) Sargent’s account. For instance, his description of the organization’s modus operandi and his assessment of Houlihan’s leadership role were confirmed and described in excruciating detail by a galaxy of live witnesses (e.g., Michael Nelson, Bud Sweeney, Cheryl Dillon). No more is exigible. D. The Redactions. After ruling that portions of Sargent’s out-of-court statements were admissible against Houlihan and Nardone, the court limited the May 30,1992 statements to those that “would have been competent and admissible evidence had the declarant been able to testify in person,” arid also excluded those portions that “directly or through innuendo” might offend the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1622, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (holding that the introduction at a joint trial of a nontestifying defendant’s statements that implicate a code-fendant constitutes prejudicial error). Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. at 365. Houlihan and Nardone objected, contending that the editing process heightened the force of Sargent’s statements, and that if the interviews were to be introduced at all, then the entire text should be fair game. The district court overruled the objections. On appeal, Houlihan and Nardone argue less that Sargent’s statements should have been redacted somewhat differently and more that they should not have been redacted at all. They assert that when a defendant waives his rights to make Confrontation Clause and hearsay objections through misconduct, the absent declarant’s full out-of-court statement should be admissible at the behest of either the proponent or opponent of the statement. This assertion rests on a misguided notion. The cardinal purpose of the waiver-by-misconduct doctrine is to ensure that a wrongdoer does not profit in a court of law by reason of his miscreancy. By murdering Sargent, Houlihan and Nardone denied the prosecution the benefit of his live testimony. To compensate for that denial the court allowed the government to introduce portions of the interviews that Sargent gave to the police. The defense, however, was not entitled to any compensation, and permitting it to introduce additional hearsay statements (apart from statements necessary to place the portions used by the government into context and to render them not misleading) would be to reward bloodthirstiness. We decline to stamp a judicial imprimatur on a calculated murder. Thus, we hold that a homicidal defendant may by his misconduct waive his hearsay objections, but that waiver does not strip the government of its right to lodge hearsay objections. It is only the party who wrongfully procures a witness’s absence who waives the right to object to the adverse party’s introduction of the witness’s prior out-of-court statements. See White, 838 F.Supp. at 625; see also Steele, 684 F.2d at 1202. To sum up, since courts should not reward parties for their own misdeeds, a prior out-of-court statement made by a witness whose unavailability stems from the wrongful conduct of a party, aimed at least in part at achieving that result, is admissible against that party as long as the statement would have been admissible had the witness testified. But the party who causes the witness’s unavailability is not entitled to the same prophylaxis. Consequently, under settled jurisprudence governing totem-pole hearsay, see Fed.R.Evid. 805, the tape of Sargent’s interview itself constituted first-level hearsay not within any recognized exception, and the district court did not err in admitting some portions at the government’s urging and refusing to admit the rest of the recording at the appellants’ behest. Houlihan and Nardone offer a second reason why the trial court erred in excluding the balance of Sargent’s statements. This construct pivots on Evidence Rule 106, a rule that codifies principles of fairness and completeness. Under it, a party against whom a fragmentary statement is introduced may demand that the rest of the statement (or so much thereof as is appropriate) be admitted into evidence in order to place the excerpt in context. It is readily evident that, as the appellants maintain, Rule 106 can serve its proper function only if the trial court from time to time is prepared to permit the introduction of some otherwise inadmissible evidence. See United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1368 (D.C.Cir.1986). Be that as it may, completeness, like beauty, is frequently in the eye of the beholder. The trial court is in the best position to assess the competing centrifugal and centripetal forces that bear on this calculus. Thus, when the trial court, acting in its discretion, finds that proffered excerpts, standing on their own, are not misleading, its judgment is entitled to great respect. See United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 256-57 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 849, 111 S.Ct. 139, 112 L.Ed.2d 106 (1990). So it is here. Houlihan and Nardone dwell on incompleteness primarily because Judge Young declared two sets of comments inadmissible. (1) Sargent told the police, inter alia, that James Boyden IV was selling drugs in Lynch’s territory; that Fitzgerald warned him and had him beaten, but to no avail; and that he then told Sargent that he would “just have to kill” the interloper. Claiming that Fitzgerald’s remarks to Sargent provided Fitzgerald with a different motive to murder Sargent, Houlihan sought to have this part of Sargent’s statement admitted into evidence. Houlihan claims that omitting references to Fitzgerald’s involvement in the murder made it appear that he, rather than Fitzgerald, was the mastermind responsible for that crime. (2) In a similar vein, Nardone claims that the court’s refusal to permit him to introduce references in the interviews to Herd’s putative involvement in the Boydens’ killings made it appear that Nardone carried out those murders single-handed. The court found that these incremental excerpts were “segregable” from the portions of the interviews that the government had proffered and denied the appellants’ requests to admit them. Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. at 366. In assessing the court’s rulings, three facts are worthy of note: (1) the interview segments admitted into evidence contained no explicit reference whatever to the Boydens’ murders; (2) neither Houlihan nor Nardone were charged with the slaying of James Boyden IV; and (3) Sargent never mentioned Nardone by name anywhere in the course of either debriefing. Bearing these facts in mind, we conclude that the lower court acted within the realm of its discretion in refusing to invoke Rule 106. Houlihan and Nardone also claim that the court should have admitted other portions of Sargent’s interviews to impeach his credibility. See Fed.R.Evid. 806 (providing that the credibility of a hearsay declarant “may be attacked ... by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if [the] declar-ant had testified as a witness”). The district court rejected this claim because it found the additional excerpts “too convoluted, collateral, or cumulative to be admitted.” Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. at 368. Having reviewed the items, we discern no error in their exclusion. Trial courts have considerable leeway in imposing outside limits on cross-examination. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. at 1435; Laboy-Delgado, 84 F.3d at 28. Here, the record demonstrates that the appellants had a full and fair opportunity during their cross-examination of the officers who interviewed Sargent to cast doubts upon his veracity. They made the most of this opportunity. By contrast, the extra material that the appellants wished to introduce lacked genuine impeachment value and promised to add virtually nothing of consequence to the grueling cross-examination. Thus, we cannot fault the district court for excluding this exiguous material. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. at 1435 (stating that cross-examination appropriately may be limited if redundant or marginally relevant); Boylan, 898 F.2d at 255-56 (similar). To say more would be supererogatory. Because our painstaking review of the record reveals no solid grounding for the claim that the district court flouted Rule 106 in any respect, we refuse to meddle. E. Prejudicial Spillover. There is one last leg to this phase of our journey. Fitzgerald alleges that the admission of Sargent’s statements resulted in unfair prejudice to him. The record reveals none. Because the prosecution must show the existence of a conspiracy to prove a conspiracy charge, evidence implicating one coconspirator is likely to be directly relevant to the charges against his codefendants. See United States v. O’Bryant, 998 F.2d 21, 26 (1st Cir.1993). Even if it is not, mistrials grounded on spillover prejudice are rare. As long as the district court limits the admission of the challenged evidence to a particular defendant or defendants, the other defendants cannot rewardingly complain unless the impact of the evidence is so devastating that, realistically, instructions from the bench cannot be expected to repair the damage. See Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1184. Silhouetted against this set of rules, the flimsiness of Fitzgerald’s claim comes into bold relief. What excites the emotions in one case may be routine evidence in another case. The material distilled from Sargent’s statements — which would have stood out like a sore thumb in a prosecution rooted in the relative gentility of white-collar crime — does not seem especially sensational when evaluated in light of the other, plainly admissible evidence that permeated this seventy-day saga of nonstop violence. Moreover, the district court instructed the jurors on the spot that they were not to consider Sargent’s statements in deciding Fitzgerald’s fate. To complement that directive, the court redacted all references to Fitzgerald from the portions of those statements that the jury heard, and it repeated its prophylactic instruction on several occasions. Under these circumstances, the presumption that jurors follow the court’s instructions is intact. Ergo, Fitzgerald suffered no unfair prejudice. III. ALTERNATE JURORS The appellants calumnize the district court because, despite their repeated objections, the court refused to discharge the alternate jurors once deliberations commenced and compounded its obduracy by allowing the alternate jurors to have intermittent contact with the regular jurors during the currency of jury deliberations. This argument requires us to address, for the first time, the interplay between violations of Fed. R.Crim.P. 24(c) and the applicable test for harmless error. The imperative of Rule 24(c) is clear and categorical: “An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c). The rule reflects the abiding concern that, once a criminal case has been submitted, the jury’s deliberations shall remain private and inviolate. See United States v. Virginia Erection Corp., 335 F.2d 868, 872 (4th Cir.1964). Here, the appellants’ claim of error is well founded. Rule 24(c) brooks no exceptions, and the district court transgressed its letter by retaining the alternate jurors throughout the deliberative period. The lingering question, however, is whether the infraction requires us to invalidate the convictions. The appellants say that it does. In their view, a violation of Rule 24(c) automatically necessitates a new trial where, as here, the defendants preserved their claim of error, or, at least, the continued contact between regular and alternate jurors that transpired in this case demands that result. The government endeavors to parry this thrust by classifying the error as benign. We find that the Rule 24(c) violation caused no cognizable harni, and we deny relief on that basis. The watershed case in this recondite corner of the law is United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). There the trial court permitted alternate jurors, while under instructions to refrain from engaging personally in the deliberative process, to remain in the jury room and audit the regular jurors’ deliberations. See id. at 727-29, 113 S.Ct. at 1774-75. The jury found the defendants guilty. The court of appeals, terming the presence of alternate jurors in the jury room during deliberations “inherently prejudicial,” granted them new trials although they had not lodged contemporaneous objections. United States v. Ola-no, 934 F.2d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir.1991). The Supreme Court- demurred. It noted that unless an unpreserved error affects defendants’ “substantial rights,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), the error cannot serve as a fulcrum for overturning their convictions. 507 U.S. at 737, 113 S.Ct. at 1779. The Court then declared that the mere “presence of alternate jurors during jury deliberations is not the kind of error that ‘affect[s] substantial rights’ independent of its prejudicial impact.” Id. Instead, the critical inquiry is whether the presence of the alternates in the jury room during deliberations actually prejudiced the defendants. See id. at 739, 113 S.Ct. at 1780. The Justices conceded that, as a theoretical matter, the presence of any outsider, including an alternate juror, may cause prejudice if he or she actually participates in the deliberations either “verbally” or through “body language,” or if his or her attendance were somehow to chill the jurors’ deliberations. Id. The Court recognized, however, that a judge’s cautionary instructions to alternates (e.g., to refrain from injecting themselves into the deliberations) can operate to lessen or eliminate these risks. See id. at 740, 113 S.Ct. at 1781 (remarking “the almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions”) (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1707, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987)). Thus, absent a “specific showing” that the alternates in fact participated in, or otherwise chilled, deliberations, the trial court’s instructions to the alternates not to intervene in the jury’s deliberations precluded a finding, of plain error. Id. at 741, 113 S.Ct. at 1781. This case presents a variation on the Ola-no theme. Here, unlike in Olano, the appellants contemporaneously objected to the district court’s retention of the alternate jurors, thus relegating plain error analysis to the scrap heap. This circumstance denotes two things. First, here, unlike in Olano, the government, not the defendants, bears the devoir of persuasion with regard to the existence vel non of prejudice. Second, we must today answer the precise question that the Olano Court reserved for later decision. See id. Withal, the framework of the inquiry in all other respects remains the same. See id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. at 1777 (noting that, apart from the allocation of the burden of próof, a claim of error under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) ordinarily requires the same type of prejudice-determining inquiry as does a preserved error). We do not discount the significance of this solitary difference, see, e.g., id. at 742, 113 S.Ct. at 1782 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (commenting that it is “most difficult for the Government to show the absence of prejudice”), but “difficult” does not mean “impossible.” Since Olano teaches that a violation of Rule 24(c) is not reversible error per se, see id. at 737, 113 S.Ct. at 1779, we must undertake a particularized inquiry directed at whether the instant violation, in the circumstances of this case, “prejudiced [the defendants], either specifically or presumptively.” Id. at 739, 113 S.Ct. at 1780. Our task, then, is to decide if the government has made a sufficiently convincing case that the district court’s failure to observe the punctilio of Rule 24(c) did not affect the verdicts. See, e.g., id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. at 1777; Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 758-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1244-48, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). In performing this task, we find the Court’s reasoning in Olano instructive. Cf. Lee v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 1296, 1299 (9th Cir.1994) (finding Olano Court’s reasoning transferable to harmless error analysis in habeas case). The risks that were run here by retaining the alternates were identical to the risks that were run at the trial level in Olano, and the district judge’s ability to minimize or eliminate those risks was the same in both situations. The operative facts are as follows. Although the district court retained the alternates, subsequent physical contact between them and the regular jurors occurred only sporadically — confined mostly to the beginning of each day (when all the jurors assembled prior to the commencement of daily deliberations) and lunch time (when court security officers were invariably present). Judge Young at no time allowed the alternates to come within earshot of the deliberating jurors. Equally as important, the court did not leave either set of venirepersons uninstructed. At the beginning of his charge, Judge Young told the alternates not to discuss the substance of the case either among themselves or with the regular jurors. He then directed the regular jurors not to discuss the case with the alternates. Near the end of the charge, the judge admonished all the talesmen that “if [the regular jurors are] in the presence of the alternates or the alternates are in the presence of the jurors, [there is to be] no talking about the case, no deliberating about the case.” The regular jurors retired to the jury room for their deliberations, and the undischarged alternates retired to an anteroom in the judge’s chambers (which remained their base of operations for the duration of the deliberations). The deliberations lasted eleven days. Each morning, Judge Young asked the regular jurors and the alternate jurors, on penalty of perjury, whether they had spoken about the case with anyone since the previous day’s adjournment. On each occasion, all the jurors (regular and alternate) responded in the negative. The judge reiterated his instructions to both the regular and alternate jurors at the close of every court session. In addition, he routinely warned the venire that, when they assembled the next morning before deliberations resumed, “no one is to talk about the ease.” On this record, we believe that the regular jurors were well insulated from the risks posed by the retention of the alternates. The judge repeatedly instructed the jurors — in far greater detail than in Olano— and those instructions were delicately phrased and admirably specific. Appropriate prophylactic instructions are a means of preventing the potential harm that hovers when a trial court fails to dismiss alternate jurors on schedule. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 740-41, 113 S.Ct. at 1781-82; United States v. Sobamowo, 892 F.2d 90, 97 (D.C.Cir.1989) (Ginsburg, J.) (attaching great importance to trial court’s prophylactic instructions in holding failure to discharge alternate jurors harmless); cf. United States v. Ottersburg, 76 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir.1996) (setting aside verdict and emphasizing trial court’s failure to provide such instructions). Courts must presume “that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case,” Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 324 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1976 n. 9, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985), and that they follow those instructions. Here, we have more than the usual presumption that the jury understood the instructions and followed them. The court interrogated the entire panel' — regular jurors and undischarged alternates — on a daily basis, and received an unbroken string of assurances that the regular jurors had not spoken with the alternates concerning the substance of the ease, and vice versa. Just as it is fitting for appellate courts to presume, in the absence of a contrary indication, that jurors follow a trial judge’s instructions, so, too, it is fitting for appellate courts to presume, in the absence of a contrary indication, that jurors answer a trial judge’s questions honestly. One last observation is telling. Over and above the plenitude of instructions, there is another salient difference between this case and Ottersburg (the only reported criminal ease in which a federal appellate court invalidated a verdict due to the trial court’s failure to discharge alternate jurors). Here, unlike in Ottersburg, 76 F.3d at 139, the judge at no time permitted the alternates to sit in on, or listen to, the jury’s deliberations (even as mute observers). Hence, the alternates had no opportunity to participate in the deliberations, and nothing in the record plausibly suggests that they otherwise influenced the jury’s actions. If the mere presence of silent alternates in the jury room during ongoing deliberations cannot in and of itself be deemed to chill discourse or establish prejudice, see Olano, 507 U.S. at 740 — 11, 113 S.Ct. at 1781-82, it is surpassingly difficult to imagine how absent (though undischarged) alternates, properly instructed, could have a toxic effect on the deliberative process. We will not paint the lily. Given the lack of any contact between regular and alternate jurors during ongoing deliberations, the trial judge’s careful and oft-repeated instructions, the venire’s unanimous disclaimers that any discussions about the ease took place between the two subgroups, the overall strength of the prosecution’s evidence on virtually all the counts of conviction, and the discriminating nature of the verdicts that were returned (e.g., the jury acquitted the appellants on sundry counts and also acquitted the fourth defendant, Herd, outright), we conclude that the government has carried its burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the trial would have been precisely the same had the district court dismissed the alternate jurors when the jury first retired to deliberate. It follows that because the appellants suffered no prejudice in consequence of the court’s bevue, they are not entitled to return to square one. IV. DISCOVERY DISPUTES The appellants stridently protest a series of government actions involving document discovery. We first deal with a claim that implicates the scope of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and then treat the appellants’ other asseverations. A. Scope of the Jencks Act. The Jencks Act provides criminal defendants, for purposes of cross-examination, with a limited right to obtain certain witness statements that are in the government’s possession. That right is subject to a temporal condition: it does not vest until the witness takes the stand in the government’s case and completes his direct testimony. Id. § 3500(a). It is also subject to categorical, content-based restrictions delineated in the statute: a statement is not open to production under the Jencks Act unless it (i) relates to the same subject matter as the witness’s direct testimony, id. § 3500(b), and (ii) either comprises grand jury testimony, id. § 3500(e)(3), or falls within one of two general classes of statements, namely, (1) a written statement made by [the] witness'and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; (2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement. ... 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(l)-(2). In this case, the government agents who led the investigation instructed all but the most senior prosecutors to refrain from taking notes during pretrial interviews. The appellants decried this practice in the district court, but Judge Young found that even the deliberate use of investigatory techniques designed to minimize the production of written reports would not violate the Jencks Act. Before us, the appellants renew their challenge. We, too, think that it lacks force. The Jencks Act does not impose an obligation on government agents to record witness interviews or to take notes during such interviews. After all, the Act applies only to recordings, written statements, and notes that meet certain criteria, not to items that never came into being (whether or not a prudent investigator- — cynics might say an unsophisticated investigator — would have arranged things differently). See United States v. Lieberman, 608 F.2d 889, 897 (1st Cir.1979) (rejecting a claim that the government has “a duty to create Jencks Act material by recording everything a potential witness says”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1019, 100 S.Ct. 673, 62 L.Ed.2d 649 (1980); accord United States v. Bernard, 625 F.2d 854, 859 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Head, 586 F.2d 508, 511-12 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Feilbogen, 494 F.Supp. 806, 814 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 657 F.2d 265 (2d Cir.1981) (table). It has been suggested that if there were evidence that lawmen “engaged in manipulative or coercive conduct” during the course of an audience with a particular witness, the failure to record that event might give rise to a Jencks Act violation. Lieberman, 608 F.2d at 897 (dictum). But this dictum, even if it might be of some moment in a proper case (a matter on which we take no view) is cold comfort to the appellants. There is no proof of such a scenario here, and, without such proof, government interviews with witnesses are “presumed to have been conducted with regularity.” Id. In the absence of a contrary legislative command — and none currently exists — the choice among available investigatory techniques is, within wide limits, for the Executive Branch in contradistinction to the Judicial Branch. The practice challenged here is not beyond the pale. Accordingly, we hold that the government did not violate the Jencks Act by instructing agents to minimize note-taking. Still, we do not mean to imply that we endorse the practice. Eschewing tape recordings and ordering law enforcement agents not to take notes during pretrial interviews is risky business — and not guaranteed to redound either to the sovereign’s credit or to its benefit. By adopting a “what we don’t create can’t come back to haunt us” approach, prosecutors demean their primary mission: to see that justice is done. In more parochial terms, the government also loses the advantage of records that it may subsequently need to safeguard against witnesses changing their stories or to refresh recollections dimmed by the passage of time. By and large, the legitimate interests of law enforcement will be better served by using recording equipment and/or taking accurate notes than by playing hide-and-seek. B. Delayed Disclosures. The appellants also complain that delays attributable to governmental foot-dragging unfairly hampered their ability to cross-examine witnesses. The centerpiece of this complaint is the appellants’ insistence that, in addition to going very slowly in creating potentially discoverable materials, the prosecutors withheld extant materials, such as existing notes, under various pretexts, claiming that the notes comprised attorney work-product and that they did not contain substantially verbatim recitals of witnesses’ statements. The appellants’ complaint is unproductive. Acting with commendable thoroughness, the district court reviewed all the prosecutors’ notes and kindred materials in camera to determine which documents (or portions of documents) were producible under the Jencks Act. The government turned over what the court ordered it to produce at the time(s) when the court ordered production to be made. In all events, we have held with a regularity bordering on the echolalic that “delayed disclosure claims cannot succeed unless the aggrieved defendant demonstrates prejudice arising from the delay.” Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1179 (citing cases); see also United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 781 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1322, 134 L.Ed.2d 474 (1996). In this context, demonstrating prejudice demands red meat and strong drink — but the appellants have served up much less hearty fare. They articulate how the delayed disclosures supposedly impeded their ability to cross-question witnesses largely by reference to two examples. Neither example is compelling. ? the appellants suggest that they were unfairly surprised because, after Nardone’s henchman, Michael Nelson, testified at trial that Fitzgerald alone had given Nardone a contract on the life of James Boyden III, they obtained the grand jury testimony of a subsequent witness (a law enforcement officer) which indicated that Nardone, in chatting with Nelson, implicated both Houlihan and Fitzgerald in ordering the hit. The appellants claim that the inconsistency between the officer’s grand jury testimony, on one hand, and Nelson’s trial testimony, on the other hand, could have been exploited to discredit Nelson on cross-examination. We are skeptical; given that Nelson’s statements during his pretrial interview, see supra note 19, and at trial were consistent, this tidbit would have been of dubious value for impeachment purposes. Moreover, while Nelson was still on the witness stand, the appellants had possession of other documents that revealed the same inconsistency. For these reasons, we are fully satisfied that any delay in the disclosure of the law enforcement officer’s grand jury testimony did not affect the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the incident fails to prove the appellants’ point. See, e.g., United States v. Devin, 918 F.2d 280, 290-91 (1st Cir.1990) (explaining that delayed disclosure of impeachment material does not warrant reversal if the material would not have altered the verdict). The second vignette concerns a prosecutor’s note to the effect that Nardone told Nelson that there were two reasons why Sargent had to be killed: first, because Houl-ihan felt that Sargent “was a risk” and “could hurt [Houlihan] by talking”; and second, “as a showing of respect to the Murrays” (a bookmaking group to whom Sargent was heavily indebted). Regarding the second reason, Nelson explained that Fitzgerald and Houlihan asked the Murrays to post $50,000 bail for Bobby Levallee, an organization stalwart, in exchange for having Sargent killed. Because the government did not reveal this note until after Nelson had completed his testimony, the appellants’ thesis runs, they were unable to cross-examine him efficaciously. This proffer, too, is wide of the mark. Under any circumstances, the note has only marginal evidentiary value in light of the extensive proof confirming Houlihan’s desire to silence Sargent in order to keep him from telling the government what he knew — a desire that the note itself acknowledges. Even more important, the appellants had sufficient notice of the alternative “gambling debts” motive well before Nelson left the stand. Nelson himself testified on direct examination that Fitzgerald and Houlihan wanted Sargent killed for “two reasons”: because they believed that the police had coopt-ed him and because they were concerned about “all [Sargent’s] gambling debts.” And, moreover, the record indicates that the appellants had the rest of the prosecutors’ notes (some of which discussed the alternative motivation) in hand before Nelson completed his testimony; indeed, Houlihan’s counsel relied on those notes to elicit information on cross-examination about Sargent’s gaming debts and his connection to the Mur-rays. Under these circumstances, no reversible error inhered. See, e.g., Saccoccia, 58 F.3d at 781 (finding no prejudice from delay when defense counsel obtained information in time to prepare cross-examination); United States v. Hodge-Balwing, 952 F.2d 607, 609 (1st Cir.1991) (finding no prejudice from late delivery of documents when the prosecutor’s opening statement alerted the defense to the same information). If more were needed — and we doubt that it is — the sockdolager is the district court’s volunteered ruling that the appellants could recall Nelson during their case for further cross-examination on the basis of the information disclosed in the note. The appellants chose to let this opportunity pass. The rule is clear that a defendant’s failure to recall a witness, despite permission to do so, undermines a claim of prejudice based on a disclosure that materialized after the witness finished testifying (but before the trial ended). See United States v. Arboleda, 929 F.2d 858, 864 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Dunn, 841 F.2d 1026, 1030 (10th Cir.1988). C. Supervisory Power. In a last-ditch effort to right a sinking ship, the appellants embrace a dictum contained in United States v. Osorio, 929 F.2d 753, 763 (1st Cir.1991) (“When confronted with extreme misconduct and prejudice as a result of delayed disclosure, this court will consider invoking its supervisory powers to secure enforcement of better prosecutorial practice and reprimand of those who fail to observe it.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on this dictum, they ask that we unleash our supervisory power and vacate their convictions as an object lesson to the government. In the bargain, they suggest that we issue a blanket rule prohibiting prosecutors from instructing their colleagues in law enforcement not to take notes during witness interviews. Federal courts should refrain from dismissing charges or overturning convictions merely as a device to conform executive conduct to judicially favored norms. Rather, the courts’ supervisory power should be used in this way only if plain prosecutorial misconduct is coupled with cognizable prejudice to a particular defendant. See United States v. Santana, 6 F.3d 1, 10-11 (1st Cir.1993); United States v. Pacheco-Ortiz, 889 F.2d 301, 310 (1st Cir.1989); see also United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 507, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1979, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (holding that when prosecutorial misconduct constitutes no more than harmless error, no relief is warranted under supervisory power). Here, both prerequisites for judicial intervention are wanting. First and foremost, the tactics complained of — if improper at all — fall far short of a showing of egregious misconduct that might impel a federal court to consider the drastic step of vacating a conviction as a sanction against overzealous prosecutors. Second, the delayed disclosures did not harm the defendants’ substantial rights. See United States v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1996) (demonstrating prejudice requires more than mere “assertions that the defendant would have conducted cross-examination differently”). That ends the matter. The supervisory power is strong medicine and, as we have said, “[p]otent elixirs should not be casually dispensed.” Santana, 6 F.3d at 10. There is no reason to write such a prescription in the circumstances of this case. V. MISCELLANEOUS The appellants, represented by able counsel, marshal a plethora of other arguments. We address some of these arguments, explaining briefly why we accept or reject them. The points that we do not mention are insubstantial and may be dismissed without elaboration. A. Murder for Hire. Fitzgerald and Houlihan, in chorus, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their murder-for-hire convictions arising out of the annihilations of Boyden III (count 15) and Sargent (count 16), and the attempts on Sweeney’s life (count 17). With one exception, the sole ground on which these challenges rest is the allegation that the prosecution fell short of establishing the requisite nexus between the use of interstate facilities and the defendants’ biocidal activities. The challenge fails. The controlling legal standard is prosaic. ‘When a criminal defendant undertakes a sufficiency challenge, all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, must be viewed from the government’s coign of vantage, and the viewer must accept all reasonable inferences from it that are consistent with the verdict.” United States v. Valle, 72 F.3d 210, 216 (1st Cir.1995). Though each element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the government’s burden “may be satisfied by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or any combination thereof.” United States v. Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 467 (1st Cir.1994). If a rational jury, indulging all credibility calls in favor of the verdict, could find the defendant guilty on this basis, then the inquiry terminates. See United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722, 730 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1046, 112 S.Ct. 908, 116 L.Ed.2d 809 (1992). Moving from the general to the specific, the murder-for-hire statute makes it unlawful to use or cause another person to use “any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that a murder be committed ... as consideration for ... anything of pecuniary value.” 18 U.S.C. § 1958. In this case, the prosecution sought to convict by proving, inter alia, that the plotters used telephone calls as a means of accomplishing their ends. The appellants did not claim below, and do not now claim, that telephone lines fall outside the rubric of “facilities in interstate commerce.” We therefore assume that point in the government’s favor, see United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.) (noting “settled appellate rule” that issues not briefed and properly developed on appeal are waived), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1082, 110 S.Ct. 1814, 108 L.Ed.2d 944 (1990), and consider only the claim that they do advance: that the evidence fails to show the use of telephones in the course of committing the charged crimes. In interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1958, it is entirely appropriate to look to case law construing the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952. See United States v. Edelman, 873 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir.1989) (explaining that Travel Act jurisprudence is a proper referent because “the obvious purpose” of the murder-for-hire statute is “to supplement” the Travel Act); see also S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 306, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3485 (noting that the murder-for-hire statute “follows the format” of the Travel Act). In United States v. Arruda, 715 F.2d 671 (1st Cir.1983), a Travel Act case, we stated: “There is no requirement that the use of the interstate facilities be essential to the scheme: it is enough that the ... use of interstate facilities makes easier or facilitates the unlawful activity.” Id. at 681-82 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This is the commonly held view, see, e.g., United States v. Lozano, 839 F.2d 1020, 1022 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. Smith, 789 F.2d 196, 203 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 668, 93 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986), and we confirm today that the non-essentiality principle announced in Arruda is embodied in the murder-for-hire statute. The key, then, is whether the jury plausibly could have found that the appellants actually used a telephone to facilitate Sargent’s and Boyden the elder’s deaths and the attempts on Sweeney’s lif