James and Mike were stockbrokers who worked together at the same brokerage firm. James is now on trial for insider trading. The prosecutor wants to admit statements made by Mike which implicate James in the insider trading scheme. James objects, arguing that Mike's statements are hearsay. The prosecutor responds that although Mike's statements are hearsay, they should be admitted as an opposing party's statement because Mike and James were co-conspirators. The trial judge rules that Mike and James were co-conspirators and admits the evidence. James appeals the trial court's decision to admit Mike's statements. How should the appellate court rule? Group of answer choices Overturn the lower court ruling if the ruling was an abuse of discretion and affected James' substantial rights. Overturn the lower court if no reasonable juror could find that a conspiracy existed. Overturn the lower court because the jury, not the judge, should decide whether a conspiracy existed. Conduct a de novo review of whether the evidence should have been admitted and overturn the trial court if the evidence should have been excluded