06-1280-cr

USA v. Riggi (Mannarino)

1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTe rm, 20 07 6 (Ar gue d: May29 , 2 008 Dec ide d: Sep tember4, 20 08) 7 8 Doc ketNo s. 06- 128 0-c r(L ), 06- 268 3-c r(c on) , 9 10 06- 286 2-c r(c on) , 0 6-2 878 -cr (co n), 06 -29 10- cr( con ) 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 13 UNI TEDST ATE S O F AMER ICA , 14 15 App ell ee, 16 17 18 - v .- 19 2 0 GIOVANNI RIGGI, MICHAEL SILVESTRI, 2 1 GIROLAMO PALERMO, also known as Jimmy 2 2 Palermo, 23 2 4 Defendants, 25 2 6 ANTHONY MANNARINO, also known as 2 7 Anthony Marshmallow, GIUSEPPE 2 8 SCHIFILLITI, also known as Pino 2 9 Schifilliti, PHILIP ABRAMO, LOUIS 3 0 CONSALVO, also known as johndoe8, also 3 1 known as Louie Eggs, also known as 3 2 Frank Scarabino, STEFANO VITABILE, also 3 3 known as Steve Vitabile, 34 3 5 Defendants-Appellants. 36 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 38 39 Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, CALABRESI an d S ACK , 40 Cir cui t Judg es.2 1 App eal s f romju dgment s o f c onv ict ionfo llo win g aju ry 2 tri al in theUn ite d S tat es Dis tri ct Cou rt forth e S out her n 3 Dis tri ct of NewYo rk (Mu kas ey, J. ). Be cau se it was pl ain 4 err or (inre tro spe ct) toadmitei ghtpl ea all ocu tio ns in 5 vio lat ionofCr awf ordv. Wa shi ngt on, 54 1 U .S. 36 (2 004 ), we 6 vac ateth e c onv ict ion s a nd remandfo r f urt herpr oce edi ngs . 7 ROLAND G. RIOPELLE, Sercarz & 8 Riopelle, LLP, New York, NY, for 9 Defendant-Appellant Guiseppe 1 0 Schifilliti. 11 1 2 INGA L. PARSONS, Law Offices of 1 3 Inga L. Parsons, Marblehead, MA, 1 4 for Defendant-Appellant Philip 1 5 Abramo. 16 1 7 SANFORD TALKIN, Talkin, 1 8 Muccigrosso & Roberts, LLP, New 1 9 York, NY, for Defendant2 0 Appellant Stefano Vitabile. 21 2 2 JOHN M. HILLEBRECHT, Assistant 2 3 United States Attorney (Miriam 2 4 E. Rocah, Katherine Polk Failla, 2 5 Assistant United States 2 6 Attorneys, on the brief), for 2 7 Michael J. Garcia, United States 2 8 Attorney for the Southern 2 9 District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee. 30 31 32 DENNIS JACOB S, Chi ef Judge: 3 3 Stefano Vitabile, Philip Abramo, and Giuseppe 3 4 Schifilliti (collectively, “defendants”) appeal from 3 5 judgments of conviction, entered following a three-week jury3 1 trial in the United States District Court for the Southern 2 District of New York (Mukasey, J.), on charges arising out 3 of their involvement in the Decavalcante organized crime 4 family. The charges include racketeering and racketeering 5 conspiracy, murder and conspiracy to commit murder, 6 conspiracy to commit extortion in the construction industry, 7 conspiracy to make and to collect extortionate extensions of 8 credit, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. 9 Defendants challenge their convictions on several grounds, 1 0 of which we reach two: (i) that the admission of eight plea 1 1 allocutions of non-testifying co-conspirators amounted to 1 2 plain error under the intervening authority of Cra wfo rd v. 13 Was hin gto n, 541 U. S. 36 (20 04) ; a nd (ii ) that the evidence 1 4 was insufficient to support the convictions on three counts. 1 5 We find merit in the Crawford claim, vacate the judgments 1 6 and remand the case for further proceedings. 17 18 BACKGROUND 1 9 These prosecutions arose out of a lengthy investigation 2 0 into organized crime, culminating in the October 2000 2 1 arrests of more than twenty persons (including Vitabile, 2 2 Abramo, and Schifilliti), and the filing of multiple 2 3 indictments. The case against the three defendants here4 1 went to trial on a nine-count superseding indictment. 2 Counts One and Two alleged racketeering and racketeering 3 conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). These two 4 counts encompassed, as predicate acts, twelve substantive 5 allegations, some of which were then also set forth as 6 separate offenses in Counts Three through Nine. After a 7 three-week trial held in Spring 2003, the jury found 8 defendants guilty of the first two counts (including that 9 the government had proven ten of the predicate acts), and, 1 0 among them, five of the remaining substantive counts. 11 12 A. Trial 1 3 We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to 1 4 the government, given the defendants’ convictions. Uni ted 15 Sta tes v. Ma pp, 17 0 F .3d32 8, 331 (2 d C ir. 19 99) . Forth e 16 per iodre lev anttoth e i ndi ctment , t he Dec ava lca nte 17 org ani zedcr imefamil y, lik e manymo b f ami lie s, was le d b y a 18 “bo ss, ” a ide d b y a n “ und erb oss ” a nd a “ cou nse lor ” o r 19 “co nsi gli ere .” Th ey sup erv ise d mult ipl e c rew s o f h ood lum s, 20 eac h l ed by a c apt ainan d mann ed by sol die rs (wh o h avebe en 21 formal ly induct ed as member s o f t he fam ily ) a nd ass oci ate s 22 (no n-memb ers ). Th e f ami ly was ru n b y a n “ adm ini str ati on” 23 mad e u p o f t op lea der shi p a nd theva rio us cap tai ns.5 1 Def end ant s a re lon g-t imeme mbe rs andle ade rs of the 2 Dec ava lca ntefamil y. Vi tab ilese rve d a s c ons igl ier e f or 3 app rox ima tel y 3 5 y ear s; Abr amoha d b eena cap tai n s inc e t he 4 lat e 1 980 s; Sch ifi lli ti hadbe en a c apt ainsi nce19 91. A t 5 all re lev antti mes , t he thr ee def end ant s w ereme mbe rs of the 6 fam ily ’s adm ini str ati on. V ita bil e w as als o ame mbe r o f t he 7 “ru lin g p ane l,” a gro up formedwh en a b oss is impri son ed or 8 oth erw isein cap aci tat ed. 9 The government’s ev ide nceattr ial in clu dedte sti mon y 10 fro m f ourco ope rat ingwi tne sse s, eac h o f whomha d k now n a ll 11 thr ee def end ant s f or dec ade s a nd hadru n t he var iou s r ack ets 12 andse rve d a s e nfo rce rs sid e-b y-s idewi th the m. Th ey wer e 13 (inde sce ndi ng ord er of ran k i n m ob hie rar chy ): (1 ) V inc ent 14 Pal erm o ( no rel ati on to Gir olamo Pal erm o, who se sep ara te 15 app eal is al so dec ide d t oda y), a lon g-t imeca pta in whowa s a 16 memberofth e f ami ly’ s r uli ng pan el andbe came a n a cti ng 17 bos s a t o ne poi nt; (2 ) Anth onyRo ton do, a cap tai n; (3) 18 Ant hon y C apo , aso ldi er; an d ( 4) Vic torDi Chi ara , a n 19 ass oci ate . Of the se coo per ati ng wit nes ses , a t l eas t o ne- - 20 andus ual ly mor e t hanon e-- tes tif iedab outde fen dan ts’ 21 inv olv eme nt in eac h o f t he cha rge d c rimes. 22 Thego ver nme nt als o p res ent ed tes tim onyfr om exp ert 23 wit nes ses , l aw enf orc eme nt off ice rs, an d f ami ly member s o f6 1 some m ob vic tim s; sur vei lla nceph oto gra phs an d v ide o; tap e2 rec ord ed con ver sat ion s; doc ume nta ry evi den ce; an d t he gui lty 3 ple a a llo cut ion s o feight non-testifying co-conspirators . 4 In ord er to ass ess th e i mpa ct of theal loc uti ons up on the 5 con vic tio ns, an d t o a sse ss suf fic ien cy of evi den ce, itis 6 nec ess arytosumma riz e i n s omede tai l t he evi den ce 7 sup por tin g e achofth e p rov en pre dic ateac ts andsu bst ant ive 8 cou nts . (Th e d efe nda nts namedinth e v ari ous ch arg es are 9 spe cif iedinpa ren the ses .) 10 1. Co nsp ira cy to mur der an d m urder of Fre derickWe iss 11 (Ab ram o) . Wei ss, anas soc iat e o f t he Dec ava lca nteFamil y, 12 was a def end ant(a lon g w ithso me member s o f t he Gambin o 13 org ani zedcr imefamil y) in a p ros ecu tio n f or ill ega l dump ing 14 of gar bag e. Th e G amb inofamil y s usp ect ed Wei ss of 15 coo per ati ng wit h t he gov ernmen t, andas kedth e D eca val can te 16 fam ilytoki ll him . Tr. 19 3-9 4. Ab ram o a tte nde d ase rie s 17 of mee tin gs in whi ch themu rde r w as pla nne d. Tr . 2 00, 20 2- 18 03, 97 3-7 4, 976 -80 , 9 85, 99 2-9 3, 210 5, 211 5. Ab ram o c ase d 19 thear ea aro undWe iss ’s home ( thepr opo sedsp ot forth e 20 mur der ), rep ort ed bac k t o t hen -bo ss Joh n R igg i a bou t t he 21 pla n, andonth e d ay of themu rde r, dro ve aro undth e a rea 22 wit h u nde rbo ss Joh n D ’Amatoinca se bac k-u p o r adi ver sio n 23 wou ld be nee ded . Tr. 97 9-8 0. Co ope rat ingwi tne ss Pal erm o,7 1 whowa s a ssi gne d t o s hoo t W eis s, tes tif iedth at whi le he was 2 wai tin g f or Wei ss to app ear , h e s aw Abr amoan d D ’Amato 3 dri vin g a rou nd thene ighbor hoo d. Tr . 2 120 . As Wei ss wal ked 4 fro m h is hou se to his ca r p ark ed in fro nt, hewa s g unn ed 5 dow n b y P ale rmoan d a not herfamil y memb er. T r. 222 , 2 121 . 6 Whe n t he sho ote rs gav e t hei r r epo rt to Abr amoan d D ’Amato , 7 Tr. 21 22, Ab ram o o r D ’Amatore pli ed, “W e k now . We hea rd the 8 sho ts. ” Tr. 99 8. La terth at day , Abramo andD’ Ama to metat 9 a r est aur antwi th Pal erm o a nd twoot herco ope rat ing 10 wit nes ses toco ngr atu lat e t hem . Tr. 21 23. 11 2. Co nsp ira cy to mur der an d m urder of Jos ephGa rofano 12 (Ab ram o) . Gar ofa no was on e o f t he par tic ipa nts inth e W eis s 13 hit . His fe ar tha t h e m igh t b e a rre ste d p rompte d c onc ernin 14 theDe cav alc ant e f ami ly tha t h e m igh t c oop era te wit h t he 15 gov ernmen t, Tr. 51 4-1 5, 996 , 1 017 -18 , 1 021 , s o t he fam ily 16 lea der shi p d eci dedtoki ll himto o. Ag ain , Abramo 17 par tic ipa tedinpl ann ingme eti ngs wi th oth er fam ilyme mbe rs. 18 Tr. 10 17- 18, 10 20- 22, 21 28- 32. C oop era tin g w itn ess Ro ton do 19 tes tif iedab outtw o meet ing s h e a tte nde d w ithAb ram o a nd 20 D’Amat o w ith in a w eekofth e W eis s murd er. T r. 101 9, 103 2. 21 Dur ingth oseme eti ngs , Abramo urg ed tha t G aro fan o b e k ill ed 22 (be cau se “hesa w e ver ybo dy tha t w as the re at the[W eis s] 23 hit ,” Tr. 10 21) , a ssi gne d aso ldi er in his ow n c rewtoca rry8 1 outth e murd er, Tr . 1 023 , a nd hel pedtode vis e a nd imp lement 2 thepl an by whi ch thehi t man wou ld amb ushhi s v ict im, Tr . 3 103 2-3 6. Onth e d ay of themu rde r, Rot ond o r epo rte d t o 4 Abr amoan d w arn ed himtoav oidbe ingsp ott ed by Gar ofa no. 5 Tr. 10 36. R oto ndoth en dro ve Gar ofa no to thesi te of the 6 hit , a nd sto od gua rd whi le Gar ofa no was sh ot to dea th. T r. 7 103 9-4 0. 8 3. Co nsp ira cy to mur der An nun zia ta and

Va sto la 9 (Ab ram o) . Dan iel An nun zia ta andGa eta no “Co rky ” Vast ola , 10 member s o f t he Dec ava lca ntefamil y, wer e t arg ete d f or 11 exe cut ionbe cau se: An nun zia ta hadre fus ed to all ow theWe iss 12 mur dertota ke pla ce at theco nst ruc tio n s iteofhi s n ew 13 home, Tr. 96 4, 980 -87 , 1 052 -58 ; a nd Vas tol a, Ann unz iat a’s 14 bro the r-i n-l aw, ba cke d h im up andal so thr eat ene d t o “ go to 15 war ” w ithth e G amb inofamil y r ath er tha n k ill We iss atth eir 16 reques t, Tr. 20 9. Onon e o cca sio n, Abr amoan d D ’Amatome t 17 wit h Annu nzi ataan d Vast olatotr y t o g et the m t o c ome 18 aro und , a nd ord ere d C apoan d P ale rmotoke ep wat ch out sid e 19 andki ll Ann unz iat a a nd Vas tol a i f a nyt hin g w entwr ong . Tr. 20 206 . 21 Abr amoan d D ’Amatosu bse que ntl y o rde redCa po and 22 Pal erm o t o k ill An nun zia ta andVa sto la, Tr . 2 04, 98 0-8 1, 23 211 1, butth e i nte nde d v ict ims go t a way , T r. 211 2. Ab ram o9 1 att end ed sev era l f oll ow- up mee tin gs, bu t t he mur der s w ere 2 nev er car rie d o ut. T r. 105 2-5 8. Ul timate ly, An nun zia ta and 3 Vas tol a s ome howma de ame nds an d w ereal low ed bac k i ntoth e 4 Dec ava lca ntefamil y. Tr . 1 057 -58 . 5 4. Co nsp ira cy to mur der an d m urder of Lou is LaR ass o 6 (Vi tab ile , Abramo, an d S chi fil lit i) . LaRass o w as a 7 Dec ava lca nteca pta in whowa s d eemed a t hre at to bos s J ohn 8 Rig gi (wh o w as the n i n j ail ) a nd act ingbo ss Joh n D ’Amato . 9 Tr. 12 4, 322 -23 , 1 066 -68 . At a m id- 199 1 meet ingth at 10 inc lud ed all th reede fen dan ts, th e f ami ly adm ini str ati on 11 vot ed to kil l L aRa sso . Tr. 32 5-3 6, 106 9-7 4, 235 5, 235 9. 12 Thepl an was fo r S chi fil lit i t o l ureLa Ras so to mee tin g a t 13 theho me of oneofSc hif ill iti ’s sol die rs. Memb ers of 14 Abr amo ’s cre w w oul d k ill hi m t her e, dis pos e o f h is bod y, and 15 lea ve his ca r a t t he air por t. Tr . 3 26- 27, 10 74- 76, 23 59- 61. 16 Mrs . L aRa ssote sti fie d t hathe r h usb andwe nt mis sin g o n 17 Nov emb er 11, 19 91. T r. 266 9-7 1. La Ras so’ s c ar was fo undat 18 theai rpo rt. T r. 267 2-7 3. Inmi d-N ove mbe r, Abr amoadvis ed 19 Rot ond o a nd Pal erm o t hatLa Ras so hadbe en kil led . Tr. 10 78- 20 79. R oto ndote sti fie d t hathele arn ed fro m o the r m ob 21 member s t hatAb ram o w as res pon sib le forLa Ras so’ s murd er, 22 andth at Sch ifi lli ti hadbe en nau sea tedatth e s cen e. Tr . 23 107 9-8 2.10 1 5. Co nsp ira cy to mur der an d m urder of Joh n D ’Am ato 2 (Vi tab ile ) . Sev era l f ami ly member s, inc lud ingco ope rat ing 3 wit nes ses Ca po, Ro ton do andPa lermo, wa nte d t o g et ridof 4 Joh n D ’Amato --h is off ens es wer e u sur pat ion , T r. 110 1-0 2, 5 ste ali ng fro m t he fam ily , T r. 109 6-9 7, 110 1-0 2, 215 5-5 6, 6 217 7, andse x w ithme n, Tr. 38 8-9 0, 109 8-1 100 , 2 157 -58 --b ut 7 the y n eed ed permis sio n o f s ome oneinau tho rit y. Tr . 3 90- 91, 8 110 0-0 1, 215 9. Ata mee tin g i n N ove mbe r 1 991 , V ita bil e 9 aut hor ize d t he mur deran d s ugg est ed howan d wher e t o d isp ose 10 of D’Amat o’s bo dy. T r. 110 7-1 0, 215 9-6 2. Sh ort ly 11 the rea fte r, Cap o ( acc omp ani ed by DiC hia ra) sh ot D’Amat o t o 12 dea th in a c ar. T r. 397 -98 , 1 619 -20 . D’Amat o’s bo dy was 13 nev er rec ove red . 14 6. Co nsp ira cy to mur der Th oma s S alvata(V ita bil e) . 15 Sal vat a, an ass oci ateonth e c rewofco ope rat ingwi tne ss 16 Pal erm o, wor kedatPa lermo’ s d anc inges tab lis hme nt 17 (“W igg les ”) andpi cke d u p l oan sha rki ng mon ey at a r est aur ant 18 in whi ch Pal erm o h ad an int ere st. T r. 230 8-0 9, 215 1. Af ter 19 sea rchwa rra nts we re exe cut ed at there sta ura nt- -an d o ne of 20 Pal erm o’s lo ans har kin g b ook s w as con fis cat ed- -Pa lermo gre w 21 sus pic iou s t hatSa lva ta was co ope rat ingwi th thego ver nme nt. 22 Tr. 21 50- 52. P ale rmoas kedVi tab iletofi nd “so meo ne to dig 23 a h olefo r me s o I co uldpu t T omm y [ Sal vat a] in the re. ” Tr.11 1 215 3. Vi tab ilepu t P ale rmointo uchwi th ano the r 2 Dec ava lca nteca pta in whowa s w ork ingona con str uct ion 3 pro jec t. Id . Themu rde r p lan s w erepo stp one d b eca useof 4 these cur ityar ran gement s a t t he con str uct ionpr oje ct. 5 Pal erm o h ad sec ondth oug hts an d c all ed offth e h it. T r. 6 215 4. 7 7. Co nsp ira cy to mur der FrankD’ Ama to (Vi tab ilean d 8 Sch ifi lli ti) . Sho rtl y a fte r t he mur derofac tin g b oss Jo hn 9 D’Amat o, his br oth er Fra nk was re lea sedfr om pri son . Tho se 10 inv olv ed in themu rde r-- inc lud ingVi tab ile , S chi fil lit i, 11 Cap o, Pal erm o a nd Rot ond o-- tho ugh t i t p rud enttoki ll Fra nk 12 bef oreheto ok rev eng e. Tr . 4 10, 11 28- 29. T he Dec ava lca nte 13 fam ily ’s adm ini str ati on- -in clu din g V ita bil e a nd Sch ifi lli ti14 -vo tedtoau tho riz e C apo(who was no t p res ent ) t o k ill Fr ank 15 D’Amat o. Tr . 4 24- 27, 11 31- 37, 21 80- 86. V ita bil e l ate r t old 16 Cap o t o k ill Fr ankatth e f irs t o ppo rtu nit y. Tr . 4 27. T he 17 mur derne verto ok pla ce. 18 8. Co nsp ira cy to commitex tor tio n i n t he con str uct ion 19 ind ust ry (Vi tab ilean d S chi fil lit i) . TheDe cav alc ant e 20 fam ilyco ntr oll ed theLa bor ers In ter nat ion al Uni on of Nor th 21 Ame ric a, Loc al 394 , a nd theAs bes tos Un ion , L oca l 1 030 . Tr. 22 262 -63 , 2 66, 27 1-7 6, 278 -80 , 1 144 , 1 155 , 1 159 , 1 571 , 2 192 , 23 220 9. Th e f ami ly’ s c ont rol wa s u sedtoex tor t k ickbac ks12 1 fro m c ont rac tor s who wan tedtous e n on- uni on lab or, an d 2 bou ghtla borpe aceinex cha ngefo r c ashpa yme nts an d “ no 3 sho w” job s. Tr . 2 67, 11 56- 58, 15 73, 22 01- 04. C ont rac tor s 4 whore sis tedth e f ami ly wer e s ubj ecttovi ole nt att ack s, 5 str ike s a nd pic ketli nes , T r. 863 -64 , a nd wer e a ssi gne d 6 par tic ula rlyun coo per ati ve uni on wor ker s, Tr. 11 58. 7 Unc oop era tiv e u nio n o ffi cia ls wer e s ubj ect ed to thr eat s a nd 8 vio len ce. T r. 264 -65 , 2 84- 89, 15 74- 79, 21 98- 99. 9 Cap o t est ifi ed to usi ng a p ipetobe at a u nio n memb er 10 whowa s maki ng tro ubl e f or oneun ionof fic ial co ntr oll ed by 11 thefamil y. Tr . 2 64- 65. C apoan d D iCh iar a t est ifi ed tha t 12 on a s epa rat e o cca sio n, Sch ifi lli ti ord ere d t hemtobl udg eon 13 a u nio n o ffi cia l who was di sob eyi ng ord ers . Tr. 28 4-2 89, 14 157 4-7 9. Pa lermo tes tif iedth at he onc e d eli ver ed $70 ,00 0 15 to Sch ifi lli ti, wh o e xpl ain ed to himth at thepa yme nt was 16 forle tti ng a c omp anywo rk non -un ion . Tr. 22 02- 05. 17 9. Co nsp ira cy to mak e a nd to col lec t e xto rti ona te 18 ext ens ion s o f c redit (Ab ram o a nd Sch ifi lli ti) . Abr amo , 19 kno wn as a “ Shy loc k’s Sh ylo ck, ” r an oneofth e m ost 20 suc ces sfu l l oan sha rki ng ope rat ion s i n t he Dec ava lca nte 21 fam ily . Tr. 11 45. R oto ndote sti fie d a s t o d eta ils ofth e 22 ope rat ion , s omeofwh ichhele arn ed dir ect ly fro m Abramo, 23 inc lud ingth e n ame s o f Abramo cre w memb ers wh o w ork ed the13 1 rac ketan d t he tra nsa cti on in whi ch Abr amolo ane d m one y t o 2 Fra nk D’Amat o, whowa s s ett inguphi s o wn sub sid iar y 3 loa nsh ark ingbu sin ess . Tr. 11 46- 47. R oto ndoal so tes tif ied 4 abo ut con ver sat ion s w ithPa lermo, wh o d esc rib ed howheto ok 5 car e o f Abramo’ s l oan sha rki ng bus ine ss whe n Abramo was 6 imp ris one d i n F lor ida . Tr. 11 46- 47. P ale rmoco rro bor ate d 7 thi s t est imo ny, expla ini ng howAb ram o h and ed ove r t he rei ns 8 of his lo ans har kin g b usi nes s b efo re he was su rre nde redto 9 lawen for cement . Tr. 22 37, 22 51- 52, 22 66- 72. 10 Pal erm o a lsosu ppl iedte sti mon y a bou t S chi fil lit i’s 11 inv olv eme nt in loa nsh ark ingbu sin ess . Sch ifi lli ti had 12 boa ste d t o P ale rmointh e e arl y 1 990 s t hatheha d s tar ted 13 loa nsh ark ingan d “ lik e[d ] i t.” T r. 228 2. Sc hif ill iti 14 sol ici tedPa lermo as a p art nerinth e b usi nes s a nd als o a s a 15 sup pli er of sol die rs forco lle cti on pur pos es. T r. 228 2, 16 203 7. 17 10. Conspiracy tocommi t s ecu rit iesfraud (Abramo) . 18 Abr amora n S ove rei gn Equ ityMa nag eme nt Cor por ati on, a boi ler 19 roo m o per ati on. T r. 171 7-1 718 , 2 238 -41 . Forth e m ostpa rt, 20 Sov ere ignbr oke rs eng age d i n “ col d c all ing. . . pr osp ect ive 21 cus tomers onth e p hon e a nd trytose ll the m b ogu s s toc ks, 22 fak e s toc ks. ” Tr. 34 8-4 9. A por tio n o f t he pro cee ds was 23 kic keduptofamil y l ead ers hip . Tr. 35 1-5 2. Ab ram o’s14 1 ass oci ateVi nce nt DiC hia ra tes tif iedth at Abr amo : c ont rol led 2 mos t a spe cts ofth e c omp any(p ers onn el, de als , c ust ome r 3 compla int s) whi le car efu llyhi din g h is inv olv eme nt, Tr . 3 43, 4 345 , 1 717 -21 , 1 729 , 1 733 -35 , 1 746 , 1 760 -61 ; k eptth e t wo 5 set s o f b ook s, Tr. 17 20- 21; an d i nst ruc tedDi Chi araon 6 pre cau tio ns forav oid ingla w e nfo rce men t d ete cti on, Tr . 7 177 1-7 2. Di Chi arafu rth er tes tif iedth at Abr amoha d 8 Sov ere ignca rryou t afr audule nt ini tia l p ubl ic off eri ng of 9 commonst ockan d w arr ant s i n aco mpa ny cal ledSC &T 10 Int ern ati ona l ( “SC TI” ), Tr. 17 43- 45; paid brokers illegally 1 1 high commissions (up to 35 percent) to motivate them to push 1 2 SCTI stock, Tr. 1968-70; an d mani pul ate d S CTI ’s sto ck pri ce 13 by fab ric ati ng inf ormati on, fa ili ng to del ive r a 14 pro spe ctu s, ref usi ng to letcu sto mer s s ell th e s toc k a t a ny 15 pri ce, pa rki ng thest ock , c onduct ingun aut hor ize d t rad es, 16 andwr iti ng fak e t ick ets fo r p hon y t ran sac tio ns, Tr . 1 745

- 17 60, 17 88. 18 19 To pro ve theex ist enc e o f t he mul tip le con spi rac ies 20 des cri bedab ove , t he gov ernmen t r eli ed, in teral ia, onth e 21 gui ltypl eas ofco -co nsp ira tor s, in thefo rm of sig ned 22 sti pul ati ons th at sta tedth e d ateofth e g uil ty ple a, the 23 cha rgetowh ichea ch co- con spi rat or ple d, andth e b asi c15 1 rel eva nt fac ts adm itt ed in theal loc uti on. I n s ummary , t he 2 sti pul ati ons st ate d: 3 (a) On Jun e 2 8, 199 3, Joh n R igg i, Vir gil Al ess i a nd 4 Bar tol ome o N ich olapl ed gui ltytoco nsp iri ng to 5 par tic ipa te in theaf fai rs of a r ack ete eri ng 6 ent erp ris e b y p lot tin g t o murd er Vas tol a. Tr . 7 263 1-3 2. 8 9 (b) On May22 , 2 001 , J ose ph Scl afa ni ple d g uil ty to 10 con spi rin g t o p art ici pat e i n ara cke tee rin g 11 ent erp ris e b y, int er ali a: (i) co nsp iri ng to 12 mur derFr ankD’ Ama to, an d ( ii) ex tor tin g B arr 13 Indust rie s, a c ons tru cti on con tra cto r. Tr . 1 436

- 14 37. 15 16 (c) On Jan uar y 1 8, 200 2, James Gal lo ple d g uil ty to 17 con spi rin g t o p art ici pat e i n ara cke tee rin g 18 ent erp ris e b y, int er ali a: (i) co nsp iri ng to 19 mur derWe iss , a nd (ii ) c ons pir ingtopa rti cip ate 20 in loa nsh ark ing . Tr. 26 84. 21 22 (d) On Mar ch 14, 20 03, Ch arl es Sta ngopl ed gui ltyto 23 con spi rin g t o p art ici pat e i n ara cke tee rin g 24 ent erp ris e b y c ons pir ingtoco mmi t c ons tru cti on 25 indust ry ext ort ion . Tr. 14 35. 26 27 (e) On Apr il 21, 20 03, Lo uis Co nsa lvopl ed gui ltyto 28 con spi rin g t o c omm it sec uri tie s f rau d a nd 29 con spi rin g t o murd er LaRass o. Tr . 2 011 . 30 31 (f) On Apr il 21, 20 03, Gr ego ry Rag o p ledgu ilt y t o 32 con spi rin g t o murd er LaRass o. Tr . 2 683 . 33 Aft er eac h a llo cut ionwa s r ead , t he tri al cou rt gav e a 34 lim iti ng ins tru cti on tha t t he all ocu tio n c oul d b e c ons ide red 35 onl y t o e sta bli sh tha t apa rti cul ar rac ket eer ingen ter pri se 36 or con spi rac y e xis ted , a nd tha t i t c oul d n ot be use d t o 37 pro ve tha t a ny def end antontr ial wa s apa rti cip ant ; a s t oInth e f ina l c har ge to theju ry, th e c our t s tat ed in 1 con nec tio n w ithth e p leaal loc uti ons : Youha ve als o h ear d t hatot her s n ot cal ledas wit nes ses pl ead ed gui ltyan d madest ate men ts abo ut the ir par tic ipa tio n i n c ert aincr ime s c har gedin thein dic tme nt. Y ou mayco nsi derth esest ate men ts as evi den ce andli ke anyot herev ide nceinth e cas e, giv e t he sta tement s s uchwe igh t a s y ou bel iev e a ppr opr iat e. Pl eas e u nde rst andth oug h, tha t y ou mayco nsi derth osest ate men ts onl y o n t he fol low ingis sue s: On e, whe the r t he rac ket eer ing ent erp ris e c har gedinco unt s o ne andtw o e xis ted ; Two , whet heran y c ons pir acyorsc heme t o d efr aud ref err ed to in thegu ilt y p leayo u a re con sid eri ng exi ste d; and , T hre e, wha t t he rol e w as of the per sonwh o p lea dedgu ilt y i n t haten ter pri se, th at sch emeorth at con spi rac y. Th e ques tio n o f whe the r a ny def end antontr ial wa s ame mbe r o f t he ent erp ris e, thera cke tee rin g c ons pir acy , t he sch emetode fra ud, oran y o f t he oth er con spi rac ies al leg ed in thein dic tme nt, an d whe the r h e p art ici pat ed in the m, is an iss ue for whi ch youwi ll hav e t o r elyonot herev ide nce . The re is [no ] e vid enc e i n t hes e s tat eme nts namin g anyot herde fen dan t o r c oco nsp ira tor . If youfi nd bas ed in par t o n t hes e s tat eme nts th at [th e] ent erp ris e o r t he sch emetode fra ud or anyofth e con spi rac ies ch arg ed in thein dic tme nt exi ste d, youmu st dec ideas a sep ara te que sti on whe the r t he def end antyo u a re con sid eri ng was a par t o f e ach all ege d c ons pir acy , b ase d e nti rel y o n t he oth er evi den ce in theca se. T her e i s n oth inginth ese sta tement s t hatan swe rs tho se que sti ons on e w ay or theot her . Tr. 33 42- 43. 16 1 eac h d efe nda nt’ s p art ici pat ion , t he jur y mustlo ok to oth er 2 evi den ce. S ee Tr. 14 37- 38, 20 12, 26 32- 33, 26 85- 86. T he 3 cou rt rep eat ed andel abo rat ed on thi s i nst ruc tio n duri ng its 4 fin al cha rgetoth e j uryonth e l aw (as se t f ort h i n t he 5 mar gin ). 117 1 B. Verdicts. Vitabile was convicted on Count One 2 (racketeering) and Count Two (racketeering conspiracy), by 3 virtue of the following predicate acts: (i) conspiracy to 4 murder and murder of Louis LaRasso; (ii) conspiracy to 5 murder and murder of John D’Amato; (iii) conspiracy to 6 murder Thomas Salvata; (iv) conspiracy to murder Frank 7 D’Amato; and (v) conspiracy to commit extortion in the 8 construction injury. Vitabile was also convicted on Count 9 Four, conspiracy to murder Thomas Salvata, 18 U.S.C. § 1 0 1959(a)(5); Count Five, conspiracy to murder Frank D’Amato, 1 1 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); and Count Nine, conspiracy to commit 1 2 extortion in the construction industry, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 1 3 and 2. Vitabile was acquitted on Count Three, conspiracy to 1 4 murder Frank Scarabino. 1 5 Abramo was convicted on Counts One and Two by virtue of 1 6 the following predicate acts: (i) conspiracy to murder and 1 7 murder of Frederick Weiss; (ii) conspiracy to murder and 1 8 murder of Joseph Garofano; (iii) conspiracy to murder Daniel 1 9 Annunziata and Corky Vastola; (iv) conspiracy to murder and 2 0 murder of Louis LaRasso; (v) conspiracy to make and to 2 1 collect extortionate extensions of credit; and (vi) 2 2 conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Abramo was also18 1 convicted on Counts Seven and Eight, conspiracy to make and 2 to collect extortionate extensions of credit, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3 892, 894. He was acquitted on Count Six, which charged the 4 financing of extortionate extensions of credit. 5 Schifilliti was convicted on Counts One and Two by 6 virtue of the following predicate acts: (i) conspiracy to 7 murder and murder of Louis LaRasso; (ii) conspiracy to 8 murder Frank D’Amato; (iii) conspiracy to commit extortion 9 in the construction industry; and (iv) conspiracy to make 1 0 and to collect extortionate extensions of credit. 1 1 Schifilliti was also convicted on Count Five, conspiracy to 1 2 murder Frank D’Amato; Counts Seven and Eight, conspiracy to 1 3 make and to collect extortionate extensions of credit; and 1 4 Count Nine, conspiracy to commit extortion in the 1 5 construction industry. Like Vitabile, Schifilliti was 1 6 acquitted on Count Three, conspiracy to murder Frank 1 7 Scarabino. Like Abramo, Schifilliti was acquitted on Count 1 8 Six, financing extortionate extensions of credit. 1 9 The government thus failed to prove Counts Three and 2 0 Six, as well as the predicate acts of conspiracy to murder 2 1 Frank Scarabino and conspiracy to murder two unidentified 2 2 John Does. For reasons discussed later, it is telling that 2 3 none of the acquitted counts and unproven predicate acts was 2 4 referred to in any of the eight plea allocutions.19 1 Following the verdict, defendants moved for judgment of 2 acquittal or a new trial, and later supplemented those 3 motions to raise new grounds for overturning the 4 convictions, including (among others) that it was error to 5 admit the eight plea allocutions based on the intervening 6 Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington, 54 1 U .S. 7 36 (20 04) . In March 2005, the district court ruled that the 8 admission of the allocutions was harmless error as to all 9 three defendants. The defendants were sentenced principally 1 0 to terms of life imprisonment. Judgments were entered 1 1 against Vitabile on July 12, 2006, against Abramo on June 9, 1 2 2006, and against Schifilliti on April 5, 2006. 13 14 DISCUSSION 15 I. 1 6 Crawford holds that theCo nfr ont ati on Cla useba rs 17 “admis sio n o f t est imo nia l s tat eme nts ofa wit nes s who did 18 notap pea r a t t ria l u nle ss he was un ava ila bletote sti fy, 19 andth e d efe nda nt hadha d apr iorop por tun ityfo r c ros s20 examin ati on. ” 541 U. S. at 53- 54. I t i s t hus co nst itu tio nal 21 err or to adm it as substantive evidence a plea allocution by 2 2 a co-conspirator who does not testify at trial “unless the 2 3 co-conspirator is unavailable and there has been a priorAb ram o a rgu es tha t h is tri al cou nse l’s si ngl e ment ion 2 of cro ss- examin ati on dur inga col loquy wit h t he cou rt abo ut oneofth e e igh t p lea s w as suf fic ien t t o p res erv e t he con sti tut ion al cla im as to him . How eve r, there mai nde r o f theco llo quyma kes cl earth at Abr amo ’s cou nse l w as arg uin g tha t t he ple a w as nottr ust wor thy , u nde r o ur now -ab rog ate d pre ced entth at reg ula rlyap pro vedth e a dmi ssi on of an una vai lab le wit nes s’s pl ea all ocu tio n t o p rov e t he exi ste nce andsc opeofa con spi rac y s o l ongas ac compan iedby par tic ula riz ed gua ran tee s o f t rus two rth ine ss. S ee Tr. 20 06- 08; se e, e.g ., Uni tedSt ate s v . P etr ill o, 237 F. 3d 119 , 122 -23 (2 d C ir. 20 00) , a bro gat ed by Crawford, 54 1 U .S. at 64. T he obj ect ionfa ile d t o “ put[t he] tr ial co urton not iceth at Con fro nta tio n C lau se con cer ns [we re] imp lic ate d.” U nit ed Sta tes v. Du kag jin i, 326 F. 3d 45, 60 (2dCi r. 200 3). “When the source of plain error is a supervening 3 decision, we have employed a modified plain error standard” that shifts the burden to the government to prove that the error did not affect substantial rights. United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 74 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007). We need not resolve whether this standard runs contrary to Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), and whether it applies to unpreserved Crawford errors, because defendants here prevail under ordinary plain error review. See Un ite d Sta tes v. Br uno , 383 F.3d 65, 79 n.8 (2d Cir. 2004). 20 1 opportunity for cross-examination.” United States v. 2 McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir. 2004). The government 3 concedes that it was error to admit at defendants’ trial the 4 eight plea allocutions. Although defense counsel objected 5 to admission of the allocutions, they did not do so on 6 Confrontation Clause grounds, and so our review is for plain 7 error. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that 2 8 the admission of the allocutions was plain error, and we 9 vacate the convictions. 321 1 Plain error is (1) error (2) that is plain, (3) that 2 affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects 3 the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 4 proceedings. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 5 467 (1997) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 6 (1993)). The admission of the eight allocutions here was 7 “so egregious and obvious” an error (albeit in retrospect) 8 that it clearly satisfies the first two conditions. United 9 States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655, 667 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc) 1 0 (internal quotation marks omitted). The fourth condition is 1 1 also satisfied: the error seriously affected the fairness 1 2 and integrity of the proceedings because, as discussed in 1 3 further detail below, the plea allocutions “almost certainly 1 4 contributed to the jury’s verdict.” United States v. 1 5 Hardwick, 523 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 2008); see also United 1 6 States v. Bruno, 383 F.3d 65, 80 (2d Cir. 2004). 1 7 Our analysis comes down to the third prong of the plain 1 8 error test: whether the error affected substantial rights. 1 9 “An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if it is 2 0 prejudicial and it affected the outcome of the district 2 1 court proceedings.” Thomas, 274 F.3d at 668 (internal 2 2 quotation marks omitted). Here, the plea allocutions 2 3 undoubtedly prejudiced the jury and influenced their 2 4 verdicts.22 1 A. The Allocutions 2 The plea allocutions were introduced to prove the 3 existence of the following nine conspiracies: 4 (1) conspiracy to conduct the affairs of the 5 Decavalcante organized crime family through a pattern of 6 racketeering activity, charged against all three defendants 7 (guilty pleas of James Gallo, Joseph Sclafani and Charles 8 Stango); 9 (2) conspiracy to murder Louis LaRasso, charged against 1 0 all three defendants (guilty pleas of Louis Consalvo and 1 1 Gregory Rago); 1 2 (3) conspiracy to murder Gaetano Vastola, charged 1 3 against Abramo (guilty pleas of Virgil Alessi, Bartolomeo 1 4 Nichola and John Riggi); 1 5 (4) conspiracy to murder Weiss, charged against Abramo 1 6 (Gallo’s plea); 1 7 (5) conspiracy to murder John D’Amato, charged against 1 8 Vitabile (Sclafani’s plea); 1 9 (6) conspiracy to murder Frank D’Amato, charged against 2 0 Vitabile and Schifilliti (Sclafani’s plea); 2 1 (7) conspiracy to commit construction industry 2 2 extortion, charged against Vitabile and Schifilliti 2 3 (Sclafani’s and Stango’s pleas);23 1 (8) conspiracy to participate in loansharking, charged 2 against Abramo and Schifilliti (Gallo’s plea); and 3 (9) conspiracy to commit securities fraud, charged 4 against Abramo (Consalvo’s plea). 5 The government conceded that it offered these pleas to 6 corroborate the cooperating witnesses’ testimony as to the 7 existence of the charged conspiracies. Tr. 2873. 8 9 B. Substantive Impact 1 0 The consequences of the erroneous admission of the plea 1 1 allocutions were manifold. 1 2 First, prejudice arose from the sheer number of plea 1 3 allocutions admitted to prove the multiple conspiracies in 1 4 this case. See United States v. Becker, 502 F.3d 122, 131 1 5 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he sheer number of plea allocutions 1 6 admitted to prove the conspiracy in this case is 1 7 significant, and highlights the importance of such testimony 1 8 to the government’s case.”). Eight separate plea 1 9 allocutions, each confessing to participation in one or more 2 0 conspiracies, were offered to the jury. Their repetitive 2 1 nature suggested that the conspiracy was so widespread that 2 2 it would be plausible for the jury to assume that defendants 2 3 were participants simply by their long and close association24 1 with the attestants. See id. While the number of pleas 2 alone would not suffice to establish a substantive impact on 3 the outcome of the trial, their admission in this case 4 cannot be described as merely cumulative. See, e.g., United 5 States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 88 (2d Cir. 2006). The 6 pleas described a wide and interlocking array of 7 conspiracies that in the aggregate bolstered the 8 government’s depiction of defendants as the ringleaders of a 9 vast criminal network. 1 0 Second, many of the conspiracies were overlapping such 1 1 that evidence of one tended to support the existence of 1 2 another. For example, the conspiracy to murder Frederick 1 3 Weiss (evidenced by Gallo’s plea) led to the conspiracies to 1 4 murder family members Daniel Annunziata and Gaetano Vastola 1 5 because of their refusal to assist in murdering Weiss 1 6 (evidenced by the pleas of Allessi, Nichola, and Riggi). 1 7 Similarly, the conspiracy to murder John D’Amato led to the 1 8 conspiracy to murder his brother Frank D’Amato out of 1 9 concern that he would exact revenge (both conspiracies 2 0 evidenced by Sclafani’s binary plea). Plea allocutions 2 1 confirming the existence of one of the linked conspiracies 2 2 naturally reinforced the evidence of the others, creating an 2 3 echo chamber of implied guilt, and amplifying the 2 4 prejudicial effect of the pleas.25 1 Third, the detailed content of the plea allocutions 2 corresponded to elements of the crimes charged against 3 defendants, potentially bolstering the government’s proof in 4 those areas. See, e.g., Becker, 502 F.3d at 131 (finding 5 prejudice where “the content of the plea allocutions was 6 unusually far-reaching and detailed, and touched directly on 7 issues that were central to [the] defense”). For example, 8 in connection with his guilty plea of conspiracy to commit 9 construction industry extortion, Stango admitted to “using 1 0 the influence of the Decavalcante organized crime family, 1 1 [and making] threats of labor unrest and threats of possible 1 2 violence to obtain payments and jobs from construction 1 3 companies.” Tr. 1435. Similarly, Sclafani’s allocution 1 4 admitted to participating in the extortion of a company 1 5 called Barr Industries “by use of threats.” Tr. 1437. To 1 6 establish extortion, the government was required to prove 1 7 the use of “actual or threatened force, violence, or fear.” 1 8 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2); see United States v. Zhou, 428 F.3d 1 9 361, 371 (2d Cir. 2005). In defending against these 2 0 extortion charges, Vitabile and Schifilliti attempted to 2 1 show that the unions’ dealings with contractors conformed to 2 2 common, legitimate business practices. See, e.g., Tr. 729- 2 3 30. The Stango and Sclafani pleas undermined this defenseExamples include: Consalvo and Rago both admitted to 4 participating in the conspiracy to murder LaRasso, and their allocutions provided details regarding the motive, timing and method for carrying out the conspiracy’s object. The defense against this charge focused on inconsistencies in the cooperating witnesses’ testimony as to whether the agreement to murder LaRasso was aborted, and which of several plans would be used in carrying out the hit. Thus, it was significant that the plea allocutions confirmed an agreement to murder LaRasso and the use of a gun in the course of it. Cf. Reifler, 446 F.3d at 90 (admission of plea allocutions was harmless error where, inter alia, they did not “indicate the methods” used by defendants). Consalvo also admitted a conspiracy to commit securities fraud between January 1993 and March 1999, which was executed by making false statements in connection with a particular stock. The dates and fraud description in Consalvo’s allocution correspond precisely with those in the indictment charging Abramo with similar offenses as to the same stock. As Abramo’s defense centered on lack of knowledge of fraud, Consalvo’s plea would have significantly prejudiced this defense by suggesting that other members of Abramo’s crew had the necessary mental culpability for the offense. See, e.g., Hardwick, 523 F.3d at 99. 26 1 by suggesting that Decavalcante family members used threats 2 and violence routinely. 3 Other allocutions similarly contained detailed 4 information that invited the jury to make improper 5 assumptions regarding defendants’ roles in the crimes 6 charged. See, e.g., Becker, 502 F.3d at 133. 4 7 8 C. Limiting Instructions 9 The government argues that the district court’s 1 0 limiting instructions inoculated against the error. While27 1 we ordinarily “presume that juries follow limiting 2 instructions,” Id., 502 F.3d at 130, it is inappropriate to 3 do so “where the prejudicial spillover was so overwhelming, 4 they cannot be presumed to be effective,” United States v. 5 McDermott, 245 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2001). Under the 6 particular circumstances of the trial in this case, there 7 was an “overwhelming probability that the jury [was] unable 8 to follow the court’s instructions.” United States v. 9 Jones, 16 F.3d 487, 493 (2d Cir. 1994). 1 0 The prejudicial spillover of the plea allocutions is 1 1 manifest in the alignment of the verdicts. The jury 1 2 convicted on every substantive count supported by a plea 1 3 allocution; and where no plea allocution was offered in 1 4 support of a substantive count, the jury acquitted. Thus, 1 5 Vitabile and Schifilliti were acquitted of the conspiracy to 1 6 murder Frank Scarabino, and Abramo and Schifilliti were 1 7 acquitted of financing extortionate extensions of credit. 1 8 The same general pattern held for the predicate acts, 1 9 with but two exceptions: no plea allocution was offered in 2 0 support of the conspiracy to murder Garofano and the 2 1 conspiracy to murder Salvata--yet, the jury found them 2 2 proven. These exceptions, however, prove the rule, as they 2 3 involve predicate acts charged within the overarching28 1 racketeering conspiracy corroborated by six plea 2 allocutions. In addition, both of these proven predicate 3 acts were offshoots of other conspiracies corroborated by 4 Gallo’s plea allocation. The Garofano murder conspiracy was 5 an offshoot of the Weiss murder conspiracy, and the Salvata 6 murder conspiracy was an offshoot of the loansharking 7 conspiracy. The correlation between the verdicts and the 8 plea allocutions strongly suggests that the jury was 9 improperly influenced by the inadmissible evidence. Cf. 1 0 Reifler, 446 F.3d at 90 (noting that the “discerning nature 1 1 of the verdicts,” which acquitted some defendants and 1 2 convicted others, “strongly indicate that the plea 1 3 allocutions [which did not distinguish among the defendants] 1 4 played no role in the convictions”). 15 16 D. Strength of Government’s Case 1 7 The government alternatively argues that because the 1 8 evidence of guilt was otherwise so overwhelming, the error 1 9 was harmless. “The erroneous admission of evidence is not 2 0 harmless unless the appellate court can conclude with fair 2 1 assurance that the evidence did not substantially influence 2 2 the jury.” United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 166 F.3d 102, 2 3 108 (2d Cir. 1999). “In making this determination, we29 1 consider principally whether the government’s case against 2 the defendant[s] was strong; whether the evidence in 3 question bears on an issue that is plainly critical to the 4 jury’s decision . . . ; whether the evidence was emphasized 5 in the government’s presentation of its case and in its 6 arguments to the jury; and whether the case was close.” Id. 7 at 108-09 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 8 Most of these factors favor defendants. The 9 government’s case consisted primarily of cooperating witness 1 0 testimony, which, even viewed in the light most favorable to 1 1 the government, contained inconsistencies and 1 2 contradictions. The government anticipated the jury’s 1 3 reluctance to rely solely on such testimony, promising in 1 4 its opening statement that “everything these witnesses tell 1 5 you will be corroborated by other evidence.” Tr. 24. As 1 6 the government concedes, this corroboration included the 1 7 eight allocutions which “were offered as proof of the . . . 1 8 nine conspiracies” alleged in the indictment. Appellee’s 1 9 Br. 72. 2 0 Although the government also offered physical evidence, 2 1 including photographs and video and audio tapes, as 2 2 corroboration, the government betrayed anxiety about the 2 3 persuasiveness of some of this evidence. Thus, the30 1 government’s opening “stress[ed]” to the jury that “[t]here 2 is no smoking gun on those [audio] tapes as to these three 3 defendants” because the cooperating witness who wore the 4 wire was “a low-level associate” who “simply was not in a 5 position to record these high-ranking members of the 6 family.” Tr. 41. In this context, the jury could be 7 expected to give even greater weight to the plea 8 allocutions. 9 This prejudicial impact was reinforced by the 1 0 government’s repeated references to the plea allocutions in 1 1 summation, attributing to them undue probative value and 1 2 significance. See Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515, 526 (2d 1 3 Cir. 2000) (“[W]here the prosecution has emphasized the 1 4 wrongly admitted evidence, it may well have been important 1 5 in the minds of the jurors.”). In its main and rebuttal 1 6 summations combined, the government referred to the 1 7 allocutions eight times. 1 8 First, in providing an overview of the evidence, the 1 9 government reminded the jury that it “heard numerous 2 0 stipulations about guilty pleas that members and associates 2 1 of the Decavalcante family have entered in federal court,” 2 2 and urged the jury to “consider these guilty pleas as 2 3 evidence that certain of the conspiracies charged in this31 1 indictment existed.” Tr. 2873. The government then recited 2 details from four of those guilty pleas. Id. 3 Second, after reviewing the testimony of three 4 cooperating witnesses regarding the conspiracy to murder 5 Annunziata and Vastola, the government stated that this 6 testimony is corroborated by three plea allocutions: 7 [T]he testimony of all the cooperators 8 regarding the existence of the conspiracy 9 to kill Corky Vastola was corroborated by 1 0 the guilty plea stipulations that were 1 1 read to you. As you heard, the boss of 1 2 the family, John Riggi, Virgil Alessi and 1 3 Barry Nichola all pleaded guilty to their 1 4 roles in that conspiracy to murder Corky 1 5 Vastola. 16 1 7 Tr. 2899 (emphasis added). In short, the government was 1 8 asking the jury to rely on the plea allocutions to add 1 9 weight to the cooperating witnesses’ testimony about 2 0 Abramo’s participation in the Vastola murder conspiracy. 2 1 Third, the government reviewed the evidence against all 2 2 three defendants concerning the murder of Louis LaRasso, 2 3 including testimony about the participation of Louis 2 4 Consalvo and Gregory Rago, who were members of Abramo’s 2 5 crew. The government urged the jury to conclude “[t]his 2 6 conspiracy existed” based in part on two plea allocutions: 2 7 “One way you know that this conspiracy to kill Louis LaRasso 2 8 existed was that, as you heard, Consalvo and Rago pleaded32 1 guilty earlier . . . this year to their roles in this 2 indicted conspiracy.” Tr. 2901. Implicit in this argument 3 was that Consalvo’s and Rago’s plea allocutions corroborated 4 the cooperating witnesses’ testimony about participation in 5 that conspiracy by defendants. 6 Fourth, in arguing that “Philip Abramo and his 7 coconspirators engaged in manipulation of the price of SCTI 8 stock and otherwise engaged in securities fraud at 9 Sovereign,” the government cited the testimony of 1 0 cooperating witness DiChiara. Tr. 2930. The government 1 1 then emphasized that DiChiara’s testimony was corroborated 1 2 by a plea allocution: 1 3 [O]ne of the ways you know that DiChiara 1 4 did not make up his testimony about the 1 5 conspiracy to manipulate the price of 1 6 SCTI’s stock at Sovereign, is that 1 7 Abramo’s own brother-in-law, Louis 1 8 Consalvo, pleaded guilty to committing 1 9 securities fraud by making false 2 0 statements about SCTI’s stock. That is 2 1 proof of the conspiracy. 22 2 3 Id. (emphasis added). The gist of this argument is that 2 4 DiChiara is telling the truth about the securities fraud 2 5 charge because Consalvo pled guilty to the same charge. 2 6 This reinforced DiChiara’s extensive testimony on the 2 7 subject against Abramo. 2 8 Fifth, after defense counsel argued that the evidence 2 9 proved no more than that the cooperating witnesses33 1 themselves were murderers (and not that defendants joined 2 any murder conspiracy), the government in rebuttal again 3 relied on plea allocutions. The government reminded the 4 jury that it “heard [guilty] pleas to murder conspiracies 5 from people from Phil Abramo’s own crew, from Joey Sclafani, 6 from Jimmy Gallo,” and argued that those pleas established 7 that the cooperating witnesses “were [not] the only violent 8 guys in the Decavalcante family.” Tr. 3205. 9 Sixth, to counter defense arguments that talk about 1 0 killing certain victims was just “joking” or “rumors,” the 1 1 government pointed to plea agreements that admitted 1 2 participation in murder conspiracies. Specifically, in 1 3 rebutting the defense claim that Sclafani was just joking 1 4 about killing Frank D’Amato, the government exclaimed, 1 5 “Joking? He pled guilty to it. Government Exhibit 58, you 1 6 heard the stipulation, he pled guilty to it.” Tr. 3206. 1 7 The government continued in this vein: 1 8 The broader point is this, Victor 1 9 DiChiara is not telling you about rumors. 2 0 He is not repeating some kind of game of 2 1 telephone about conversations that people 2 2 had. He’s telling you about 2 3 conversations he had with people who 2 4 conspired with him to murder Frank 2 5 D’Amato. One of the murder conspiracies 2 6 to which people pled guilty, including 2 7 the cooperators. And the idea that 2 8 Vitabile got charged with this because of 2 9 a misunderstood joke that got blown out 3 0 of proportion is ridiculous. . . . [Y]ou34 1 then heard that Sclafani, among other 2 people, pled guilty to conspiring to kill 3 the guy. 4 5 Tr. 3207 (emphasis added). The government was plainly 6 asking the jury to infer that Sclafani’s plea proves that 7 DiChiara is telling the truth about the murder conspiracies 8 and defendants’ participation in them. 9 Seventh, as previously mentioned, the government 1 0 anticipated the jury’s reluctance to rely on the audio tape 1 1 recordings because they did not provide a “smoking gun” as 1 2 to these defendants. See, e.g., Tr. 3240 (“Now, there’s no 1 3 tape of these guys ordering murders.”). In rebutting 1 4 defense arguments that the audio tapes failed to connect 1 5 defendants to extortion in the construction industry, the 1 6 government reprised testimony of cooperating witnesses on 1 7 that score, in particular Palermo’s testimony that he 1 8 regularly delivered to Schifilliti cash payments from cement 1 9 companies. Tr. 3238. The government then reminded the jury 2 0 that the testimony and tapes were corroborated by Stango’s 2 1 plea allocution: 2 2 The evidence of that is clear, but I 2 3 really bring it up because I want to 2 4 discuss something real quickly. Which I 2 5 don’t think we mentioned earlier on this 2 6 conspiracy, conspiracy to extort 2 7 companies using unions etc., one of the 2 8 reasons you know that conspiracy exists 2 9 is because . . . Charlie Stango you may 3 0 remember you heard pled guilty to a35 1 conspiracy, so you know the conspiracy 2 existed. 3 4 Tr. 3239 (emphasis added). The jury plausibly could 5 conclude from this argument that they were entitled to rely 6 on Stango’s plea to corroborate Palermo’s testimony about 7 construction industry extortion, and in particular 8 Schifilliti’s role in the scheme. 9 Finally, the government’s last words to the jury were 1 0 (again) to consider the plea allocutions as evidence of the 1 1 crimes charged against defendants, and not merely of 1 2 evidence of the existence of the conspiracies. The 1 3 government asked the jury to consider all of the proof of 1 4 “the murder of those four men and . . . the other crimes as 1 5 well,” including: 1 6 the corroboration from the tapes, the 1 7 conversation of these defendants on tape 1 8 with Vinnie Palermo, . . . photographs 1 9 and videotapes[] in meetings with high2 0 ranking Gambino family members and 2 1 others, . . . that numerous people have 2 2 pled guilty to conspiracy to murder and 2 3 extort as charged here, . . . [and] the 2 4 consistent testimony of the corroborating 2 5 witnesses . . . . 2 6 Tr. 3251-52 (emphasis added). 2 7 The plea allocutions were woven throughout the 2 8 summation, and went beyond isolated, casual or merely 2 9 cumulative mention. Cf. United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 3 0 F.3d 61, 77 (2d Cir. 2007) (single mention, in fifty-page36 1 summation, of erroneously admitted allocution was harmless); 2 Reifler, 446 F.3d at 88 (one paragraph discussing allocution 3 in 110-page summation was harmless). Nor did the government 4 attempt to mitigate any prejudice or reinforce the limited 5 purpose of the evidence by reminding the jury of the court’s 6 instructions. Rather, the import that the government 7 repeatedly assigned to the plea allocutions effectively 8 eroded the court’s limiting instruction and exacerbated the 9 prejudicial effect. See Becker, 502 F.3d at 132. Given the 1 0 number and content of the plea allocutions, and the 1 1 corroborative value and repeated emphasis placed on them, 1 2 the constitutional error was not harmless. 1 3 We conclude that all four conditions for plain error 1 4 are satisfied here, and we exercise our discretion to notice 1 5 the error and vacate the judgments of conviction. 16 17 II. 18 Sch ifi lli ti arg ues th at theev ide ncewa s i nsu ffi cie nt 19 to con vic t h im of theLa Ras so mur deran d t he loa nsh ark ing 20 con spi rac y; andAb ram o a rgu es tha t t he evi den ce was 21 ins uff ici enttoco nvi ct himofth e l oan sha rki ng con spi rac y 22 andth e s ecu rit ies fr audco nsp ira cy.37 1 Def end ant s u nde rta ke a h eav y b urd en in see kin g t o 2 rev ers e t hei r c onv ict ion s o n g rou nds th at theev ide ncewa s 3 ins uff ici ent . SeeUn ite d S tat es v. Dhi nsa , 2 43 F.3 d 6 35, 4 648 (2 d C ir. 20 01) . A c onv ict ionwi ll be aff irmed if, 5 vie win g a ll theev ide nceinth e l igh t m ostfa vor abl e t o t he 6 pro sec uti on, “a ny rat ion al tri er of fac t c oul d h avefo und 7 thees sen tia l e lement s o f t he cri me bey onda rea son abl e 8 dou bt. ” Jac kso n v . V irg ini a, 443 U. S. 307 , 3 19 (19 79) . The 9 suf fic ien cy tes t i s a ppl ied“t o t he tot ali ty of the 10 gov ernmen t’s ca se andno t t o e achel eme nt, as ea ch fac t m ay 11 gai n c olo r f romot her s.” U nit ed Sta tes v. Gu ada gna , 1 83 12 F.3 d 1 22, 13 0 ( 2d Cir . 1 999 ). Al l i ssu es of cre dib ili ty, 13 inc lud ingth e c red ibi lit y o f aco ope rat ingwi tne ss, mu st be 14 res olv ed in fav or of theju ry’ s v erd ict . SeeUn ite d S tat es 15 v. Gle nn, 31 2 F .3d58 , 6 4 ( 2d Cir . 2 002 ). “I n s itu ati ons 16 whe re some g ove rnmentev ide ncewa s e rro neo usl y a dmi tte d, we 17 mus t m akeou r d ete rmi nat ionco nce rni ng suf fic ien cy tak ing 18 int o c ons ide rat ionev en theimpro per ly adm itt ed evi den ce. ” 19 Uni tedSt ate s v . C ruz , 3 63 F.3 d 1 87, 19 7 ( 2d Cir . 2 004 ) 20 (ci tin g L ockhar t v . N els on, 48 8 U .S. 33 , 3 9-4 0 ( 198 8)) . 21 Al tho ughwear e v aca tin g t he con vic tio ns on Cra wfo rd 22 gro und s, we mus t r eac h t he suf fic ien cy cha lle nge s b eca useif 23 theev ide ncewa s i nsu ffi cie nt, do ubl e j eop ard y w oul d b ar38 1 ret ria l. Se e United States v. Marcus, --- F.3d ---, --- 2 n.6, No. 07-4005-cr, 2008 WL 3474434, at *7 n.6 (2d Cir. 3 Aug. 14, 2008) ; s ee als o United States v. Bruno, 383 F.3d 4 65, 90 n.20 (2d Cir. 2004 ) ( obs erv ingth at whe re evi den ce is 5 ins uff ici entex clu din g t he imp rop erl y a dmi tte d e vid enc e, but 6 is suf fic ien t i ncl udi ng theimpro per ly adm itt ed evi den ce, 7 there med y i s r etr ial ra the r t hanac qui tta l). W e c onc lud e 8 tha t t he tot ali ty of theev ide nceth at was pr ese nte d a t 9 tri al wou ld be leg all y s uff ici enttosa tis fy theel eme nts of 10 theco nvi cti ons ifal l o f t hatev ide nceha d b eenpr ope rly 11 adm itt ed. 12 13 A. LaRass o M urder 14 Sch ifi lli ti was co nvi cte d o f b othth e c ons pir acyto 15 mur deran d t he act ual mu rde r o f L oui s L aRa sso . Sch ifi lli ti 16 arg ues th at theev ide ncewa s i nsu ffi cie nt to con vic t h im of 17 theac tua l murd er bec aus e L aRa sso ’s bod y w as nev er fou nd and 18 theon ly evi den ce tha t S chi fil lit i w as pre sen t a t t he mur der 19 sce ne is hig hlyat ten uat ed. 20 Fir st, th erewa s e vid enc e t hatLa Ras so was ki lle d a nd 21 didno t j ustgoun der gro und : c oop era tin g w itn ess es tes tif ied 22 abo ut a D eca val can te adm ini str ati on mee tin g a t whic h 23 LaRass o’s de athwa s o rde redbyal l t hre e d efe nda nts an d t he39 1 oth er member s o f t he rul ingpa nel , T r. 106 9-7 4; Cap o 2 tes tif iedth at he dis cus sedth e p lan s a nd log ist ics ofth e 3 hitwi th Sch ifi lli ti, Tr . 3 27- 28; Ro ton do tes tif iedth at 4 oth er co- con spi rat ors re por tedth at Sch ifi lli ti was pr ese nt 5 (an d w as nau sea ted ) a t t he mur dersc ene , T r. 107 9-8 2; 6 LaRass o’s famil y s aidhedi sap pea redonNo vember11 , 1 991 , 7 Tr. 26 69- 71; co ope rat ingwi tne sse s t est ifi ed tha t a t a rou nd 8 thesame time t heywe re tol d b y Abramo andot her s t hat 9 Abr amoan d S chi fil lit i h ad “ta kenca re” ofLa Ras so, Tr . 3 38; 10 andLa Ras so’ s a ban don ed carwa s f oun d a t a n a irp ort --a s 11 env isi one d i n t he mur derpl an, Tr . 2 672 -73 . It was en tir ely 12 rea son abl e f or theju ry to con clu de tha t L aRa ssowa s 13 mur der ed. 14 Sch ifi lli ti was pl ace d a t t he sce ne of themu rde r b y 15 Rot ond o’s te sti mon y a s t o whatan oth er co- con spi rat or had 16 wit nes sed --a tte nua tedev ide nce , a s S chi fil lit i c har act eri zes 17 it. B ut, inan y e ven t, it was un nec ess arytopr ove 18 Sch ifi lli ti’ s p res enc e a t t he mur dersc eneinor derto 19 con vic t h im of themu rde r. Th e e vid enc e e sta bli she d t hat 20 Sch ifi lli ti was on e o f t he adm ini str ati on member s who 21 “or der ed” th e h it; th at ord er was a pre dic atefo r t he 22 mur der . Comman din g o r p roc uri ng a c rim ina l a ct is 23 suf fic ien t t o i mpo se cri min al lia bil ityas a pri nci pal un der40 1 bot h 1 8 U .S. C. § 2 (whoe ver“a ids , a bet s, cou nse ls, 2 comman ds, in duc es or pro cur es [th e c omm iss ionofanof fen se] 3 is pun ish abl e a s apr inc ipa l”) , a nd und er N.Y . P ena l L aw 4 § 2 0.0 0 ( an aid er andab ett or is cri min all y l iab le as a 5 pri nci pal wh ene verhe“s oli cit s, reques ts, co mma nds , 6 imp ort une s, or int ent ion all y a ids su ch per sontoen gag e i n” 7 cri min al con duc t w ithth e r equ isi te men s r ea) . Theto tal ity 8 of evi den ce is suf fic ien t t o s upp orta jur y f ind ingth at 9 Sch ifi lli ti comman dedth e murd er, an d t hatLa Ras so was 10 mur der ed pur sua nt to tha t c ommand . 11 12 B. Loanshark ingConsp ira cy 13 Abr amoan d S chi fil lit i a rgu e t hatth e e vid enc e w as 14 ins uff ici enttoco nvi ct the m o f c ons pir ingtoma ke and 15 col lec t e xto rti ona te ext ens ion s o f c red it. I n p art icu lar , 16 the y c ont endth at the re was noev ide nceofan y p art icu lar 17 ext ort ion atelo an, orofex tor tio nat e mean s u sedtoco lle ct 18 suc h alo an, orofa con spi rac y b etw eenth esetw o d efe nda nts 19 to committh e o ffe nse . Theex ist enc e o f t he loa nsh ark ing 20 con spi rac y r est ed in lar ge par t o n G all o’s impro per ly 21 adm itt ed ple a a llo cut ion , a nd on co- con spi rat ors ’ s tat eme nts 22 rep ort ed by theco ope rat ingwi tne sse s, some o f whic h 23 def end ant s a rgu e w ereal so ina dmi ssi ble . Butfo r t he41 1 pur pos e o f a sse ssi ng thele gal su ffi cie ncyofth e e vid enc e 2 to sup por t acr imi nal co nvi cti on, wemu st wei gh tha t 3 evi den ce as tho ughitwa s p rop erl y a dmi tte d. Se e C ruz , 3 63 4 F.3 d a t 1 97. ( Ourru lin g o n s uff ici enc y t her efo re doe s n ot 5 sup por t a ny inf ere nceas toadmis sib ili ty. ) 6 Coo per ati ng wit nes ses admit tedtope rso nal 7 par tic ipa tio n i n “ loa nsh ark ing ,” andte sti fie d e xte nsi vel y 8 abo ut theDe cav alc ant e f ami ly' s i nvo lve men t i n 9 “lo ans har kin g” and“s hyl ock ing .” Se e, e.g ., Tr. 15 6-5 7, 10 127 5, 159 0, 193 2. Itwa s e xpl ain ed tha t “ shy loc kin g i s t he 11 same t hin g a s l oansh ark ing .” Tr . 2 565 . Coo per ati ng 12 wit nes s P ale rmode fin ed loa nsh ark ingas le ndi ng mon ey at 13 hig h i nte res t r ate s, andus ingvi ole nceorth e t hre at of 14 vio len ce to ens urere paymen t. Tr . 1 976 -77 . Ask ed wha t 15 hap pen s “ if a l oansh arkcu sto merfa ils topa y b ackth e 16 mon ey he bor row ed, ” P ale rmoexpla ine d, “yo u e xte nd it fora 17 whi le andth en if not hin g h app ens , h e w ind s u p w itha 18 bea tin g.” T r. 197 7. Pa lermo des cri beda par tic ula r d ebt or 19 whowa s “ hav ingdi ffi cul ty kee pin g u p w ithhi s p ayment s,” 20 andwa s c ons equ ent ly “af rai d f or his li fe” an d “ tho ugh t t he 21 wis e g uys towh om he owe d t he mon ey wer e g oin g t o h urtor 22 kil l h im. ” Id. S imi lar ly, Ro ton do def ine d l oan sha rki ng as 23 “le n[d ing ] m one y t o o the rs at usu rio us rat es . . . wit h t he42 1 und ers tan din g t hatso met hin g w oul d h app en to the m i f t hey 2 didn’tpa y i t b ack .” Tr . 9 30. C apote sti fie d t hatth e 3 mea ns of col lec tin g s uchlo ans we re “[t ]hr eat s o f 4 int imi dat ion , r epu tat ion , I wo uldtr y t o k nowmycu sto mer s 5 to mak e s ureth ey . . . und ers too d m y p osi tio n i n o rga niz ed 6 cri me or ass oci ati on wit h i t.” T r. 158 . See18 U. S.C . § 7 891 (7) (d efi nin g “ loa nsh ark ing ” t o i ncl udeanex ten sio n o f 8 cre ditwh ere“t he deb torre aso nab ly bel iev ed tha t . . . t he 9 cre dit or hada rep uta tio n f or theus e o f e xto rti ona te mea ns 10 to col lec t . . . o r t o p uni sh theno nre paymen t t her eof ”). 11 Spe cif ica llyas toAb ram o, coo per ati ng wit nes ses 12 tes tif iedth at he was th e “ Shy loc k’s Sh ylo ck, ” T r. 114 5, and 13 off ere d d eta ils ab outAb ram o's “l oansh arkbo ok” an d “ loa n 14 sha rk pic kup s,” Tr . 1 146 , 1 147 . The y d esc rib ed Abr amo 's 15 par tne rs in thelo ans har k b usi nes s, thecr ew member s who 16 ser vedas en for cer s, his ar ran gement s f or del ive ry of 17 loa nsh arkpa yme nts , a nd his me asu res fo r d eal ingwi th 18 pro ble m d ebt ors . Tr. 11 45- 47, 22 37, 22 51- 52. A s t o 19 Sch ifi lli ti, co ope rat ingwi tne ss Pal erm o t est ifi ed tha t t he 20 def end antdi scu sse d d eta ils ab outhi s l oan sha rki ng bus ine ss 21 andonon e o cca sio n a ske d P ale rmotole nd twocr ew member s 22 to mak e aco lle cti on on a l oan . Tr. 22 82, 20 37. P ale rmo 23 fur the r t est ifi ed abo ut a c onv ers ati on wit h o ne of tho se43 1 cre w memb ers wh o e xpl ain ed tha t, in ord er to col lec t m one y 2 fro m t he deb tor , h e h ad to “st ron g-a rm[ ] t he guy , [ get ] v ery 3 nas ty wit h t he guy .” Tr . 2 222 -23 . 4 Theev ide nceth us est abl ish ed tha t t hes e d efe nda nts 5 eng age d i n l oan sha rki ng andco nsp ire d w ithse ver al oth er 6 co- con spi rat ors toru n t hei r l oan sha rki ng ope rat ion s. It 7 was un nec ess arytoli nk Abr amo ’s andSc hif ill iti ’s 8 ope rat ion s i n o rde r t o c onv ictth em bot h o f t he loa nsh ark ing 9 off ens e. Th e c omb ina tio n o f t he adm iss ibl e a nd ina dmi ssi ble 10 evi den ce was su ffi cie nt to sup por t aco nvi cti on. 11 12 C. Con spi racy to Commit Securi tie s Fraud 13 Abr amoar gue s t hatth e s ecu rit ies fr audco nvi cti on 14 can notst andbe cau se it was ba sedal mos t e nti rel y o n t he 15 unc orr obo rat ed tes tim onyofco ope rat ingwi tne ss DiC hia ra. 16 How eve r, “a con vic tio n may be sup por tedon ly by the 17 unc orr obo rat ed tes tim onyofa sin gleac compli ce . . . if 18 tha t t est imo ny is notin cre dib le on its fa ce andis ca pab le 19 of est abl ish inggu iltbe yon d are aso nab le dou bt. Any lac k 20 of cor rob ora tio n g oes me rel y t o t he wei ghtofth e e vid enc e, 21 nottoit s s uff ici enc y.” U nit ed Sta tes v. Pa rke r, 903 F. 2d 22 91, 97 (2 d C ir. 19 90) (i nte rna l c ita tio n o mit ted )). 23 DiC hia ra tes tif ied , b ase d o n d ail y f ace -to -fa ce int era cti on44 1 wit h Abramo andwi th oth er co- con spi rat ors inth e s toc k 2 fra ud, th at: So ver eig n w as nota leg iti mat e b rok era ge; 3 Abr amoco ntr oll ed Sov ere ignan d w as act ive ly inv olv ed in its 4 fra udu len t a cti vit ies an d i n meas ure s t o a voi d l aw 5 enf orc eme nt det ect ion ; a nd thest ockof fer ingfo r t he 6 compan y k now n a s S CTI wa s asc am des ign ed andimple men tedby 7 Abr amo . Theju ry was en tit ledtobe lie ve DiC hia ra. 8 In anyev ent , other cooperating witness testimony 9 corroborated DiChiara’s description of Abramo’s securities 1 0 fraud schemes. Capo, the captain to whom DiChiara reported, 1 1 testified that Abramo told him directly that Sovereign was 1 2 “his,” but that he kept his office separate for legal 1 3 reasons. Tr. 345. Capo also testified that DiChiara had 1 4 “put it on record” with Capo that DiChiara was working with 1 5 Abramo at Sovereign, which Capo reported up the Decavalcante 1 6 family chain of command. Tr. 351. Capo recalled DiChiara’s 1 7 descriptions of his activities at Sovereign, including 1 8 “sell[ing] bogus stocks, fake stocks.” Tr. 348. 1 9 Palermo testified about conversations with one of 2 0 Abramo’s partners in the SCTI fraud who explained how money 2 1 realized from the stock fraud had to be hidden. Tr. 2248. 2 2 Abramo confirmed to Palermo that DiChiara was working for 2 3 him at Sovereign, and bragged to Palermo about the success 2 4 of Sovereign’s “pump and dump” schemes. Tr. 2238-43. Other45 1 Abramo crew members, including Louis Consalvo, told Palermo 2 about their roles in enforcing Abramo’s control over the 3 brokers at Sovereign, including in one case hitting an 4 employee over the head with a telephone. Tr. 2243. Rotondo 5 described Abramo as “the original pump and dump guy on Wall 6 Street.” Tr. 1148. 7 Abr amoar gue s i n t he alt ern ati ve tha t t he gov ernmen t 8 fai ledtoad duc e s uff ici entev ide nceofa nex us wit h 9 int ers tat e c ommerc e, theju ris dic tio nal el eme nt of the 10 off ens e. As th is Cou rt has pr evi ous ly obs erv ed, itis ea sy 11 forpr ose cut ors toov erl ookth is simplebu t e sse nti al 12 ele men t o f afe der al off ens e: 13 [F] ede ral pr ose cut ors mu st dev oteth e 14 min ima l e ffo rt nec ess arytoes tab lis h 15 fed era l j uri sdi cti on ove r t he act s o f t he 16 acc use d. Th ereis no thi ng mor e c ruc ial , 17 yetsost rik ing ly obv iou s, as thene ed to 18 pro ve theju ris dic tio nal el eme nt of a 19 cri me. S adl y, we arefo rce d t o c ont inu e 20 rev ers ingco nvi cti ons , a s l ongas 21 pro sec uto rs remainla x i n t he simple r 22 asp ect s o f t hei r j obs . 23 Uni tedSt ate s v . L esl ie, 10 3 F .3d10 93, 11 03 (2dCi r. 199 7). 24 Abr amoch ara cte riz es theev ide ncere lat ingto 25 Sov ere ign ’s act ivi tie s a s h avi ng bee n c abi nedwi thi n i ts 26 Wal l S tre et off ice s, andpo int s o ut (fo r e xample ) t hatno 27 evi den ce was ad duc ed of anyte lep hon e c all s madeorma il 28 sen t o ut- of- sta te fro m t hatof fic e. Ab ram o a ccu ses th e46 1 gov ernmen t o f r ely ing , f or its in ter sta te nex us, so lel y o n 2 thesu ppo sit ionth at of the10 0 t o 1 50 Sov ere ignbr oke rs, 3 oneoran oth er mus t s ure ly hav e c all ed oneormo re cus tomers 4 out sid e N ew Yor k S tat e. 5 Thego ver nme nt’ s e vid enc e h ereis th in butsu ffi cie nt. 6 It was ab le to sho w a n i nte rst atene xus fr om thefo llo win g 7 evi den ce in thetr ial re cor d: (a ) S ove rei gn use d, in 8 con nec tio n w ithth e S CTI sc am, fo rei gn nom ine e a cco unt s h eld 9 in off sho re compan ies co ntr oll ed by Abr amoan d h is co10 con spi rat ors ; ( b) an Abr amopa rtn er whopl aye d ama jorro le 11 in theSC TI sch emewa s s tat ion ed in Sov ere ign ’s off icein 12 Boc a R ato n, Flo rid a; (c) tr adi ng inf ormati on abo ut SCT I w as 13 acc ess ibl e e lec tro nic all y f romot herst ate s ( and , i n f act , a 14 def ens e e xpe rt tes tif iedab outac ces sin g t he inf ormati on 15 fro m N ew Jer sey ); and(d ) t he SCT I s che me was na tio nal in 16 sco pe, ma kin g i t r eas ona bletoin ferth at its imple men tat ion 17 nec ess ita tedth e u se of int ers tat e o r i nte rna tio nal ma il and 18 wir e f aci lit ies . 19 Bec aus e t ria l e rro r o the rwi se requir es vac atu r o f t he 20 con vic tio ns, weexpre ss no opi nio n a s t o whet herth e 21 evi den ce of theLa Ras so mur der , l oan sha rki ng andse cur iti es 22 fra ud cha rge s w oul d b e s uff ici entwi tho ut theimpro per ly 23 adm itt ed evi den ce. C f., United States v. Hardwick, 523 F.3d47 1 94, 102 & n.7 (2d Cir. 2008) . In ass ess ingth e s uff ici enc y 2 of evi den ce, weha ve notus ed thewo rd “ample .” No r d o w e 3 rea ch def end ant s’ remain ingar gument s c hal len gin g ( i) the 4 adm iss ionofco -co nsp ira tor s’ sta tement s; (ii ) t he 5 gov ernmen t’s fa ilu re to dis clo se cer tai n B rad y mate ria ls; 6 and(i ii) th e l ifese nte nceofon e o f t he def end ant s. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 Forth e f ore goi ng rea son s, theju dgment s o f t he 10 dis tri ct cou rt areva cat ed andre man dedfo r f urt her 11 pro cee din gs con sis ten t w ithth is opi nio n.