2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-13-2006 

# U SA v . Gork o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-1597

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Gorko " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1453. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1453NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N os : 03- 1597 and 04- 4142 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J O S E P H A . G O R K O , J R ., A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l fo r th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 00- C R - 00259 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Thom as I . V anas ki e, C hi ef J udge

A r gued February2, 2006 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 13, 2006) J os eph A . O ’ B r i en ( ar gued) O l i ver , Pr i ce & R hodes 1212 Sout h A bi ngt on R oad P. O . B ox 240 C l arks Sum m i t , PA 18411 C ouns el f orAppel l ant J ohn C . G ur ganus , J r . ( ar gued) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 235 N or t h W as hi ngt on A venue P. O . B ox 309, Sui t e 311 Scr ant on, PA 18503 C ouns el f orAppel l ee2 OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . J os eph G or ko, J r . , D . V . M . , appea l s fr om hi s convi ct i on on t hi r t een c ount s of m ail ing threa tenin g co m m u n icati o n s in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 8 7 6 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt had j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e exe r ci s e fi nal or derj ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt. I. O n S eptem ber 19, 2000 , a grand j uryreturned a n eleven co un ti nd i ct m ent agai nst G o rk o c h a rg in g h im w ith m a ilin g th re a te n in g c o m m u n ic a tio n s in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 876. C ount s O ne thr ough Seven al l eged thatG or ko m ai l ed s even thr eat eni ng c o m m u n ica tio n s to P e ter P a u l O lsz e w sk i, Jr., w ith th e in ten t to e x to rt m o n e y . C o u n ts E i ght , N i ne and Ten al l eged thatG or ko caus ed t o be del i ver ed bythe U ni t ed St at es Post al S e rv ic e c o m m u n ic a tio n s c o n ta in in g a th re a t to in ju re to h is f

a th e r, J o s e p h A . G o rk o , S r. C ountE l even a verr ed thatG or ko caus ed t o be del i ver ed anothercomm uni cat i on c o n ta in in g a th re a t to in ju re to O ls z e w s k i. O n February14, 2001, G or ko w as i ndi ct ed on tw o addi t i onal count s i n t he N or t hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o of ca us i ng t o be del i ver ed t o hi s fathercomm uni cat i ons co n tai n ing a thre at t o injure in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 8 7 6 . T h ese ch arg es w ere3

t r ans ferr ed t o t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a and c ons ol i dat ed fortr i al w i t h t he other e le v e n c o u n ts . A tt r i al , t he evi dence es t abl i s hed thatG or ko s i gned hi s name t o t he comm uni cat i on o n w h ich C o u n t E lev e n w a s b a se d . T h e o th e r c o m m u n ica tio n s, h o w e v e r, w e re o n ly c irc u m sta n tiallya ttribu ted to G o rk o . T h e g o v e rn m e n t li n k e d th e o th e r c o m m u n ica tio n s to G or ko bydemonstr at i ng t hatt heyw er e cons i s t entw i t h t he pl an s etouti n a book t i t l ed Y o u r R e v e n g e Is I

n T h e M a il , w hi ch pr ovi ded i nform at i on on how “t o des t r oythe underpi nni ngs ” of the t ar getof y ourr evenge . T hi s book, w hi ch w as found i n a bedr oom G o rk o h a d p re v io u slyo c c u p ied a t h is f a th e r’s h o u se , co n tain e d a “ p rim e r” o n h o w to acc om pl i s h t hi s “mai l or derr evenge . ” B eca us e s om e of the r evenge w as t o be extr act ed bys endi ng l et t er s fr om t hi r d par t i es , the pr i m ers ugges t ed maki ng l et t erhead a nd envel opes fort he thi r d par t i es bycut t i ng and pas t i ng par t s of l ett erhead, s i gnatur es and o th e r p o rtio n s o f

d o c u m e n ts o n to a b lan k sh e e t o f p a p e r, an d th e n p h o to c o p y in g it t o pr oduce a “good, qual i t yl et t erhead. ” The evi dence es t abl i s hed thats om e of the t h r e a t e n i n g c o mmun i c a t i o n s wer e c r e a t e d u s i n g th i s c u t - a n d - p a s t e t e c h n i q u e . To d e m o n stra te G o rk o ’s a b ili tyto u til ize th is c u t-a n d -p a ste tec h n iq u e , as w e ll as h is id e n tity as t he authorof s om e of the thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i ons , the governm entadmi t t ed other d o cu m en ts co n stru cted b yG o rko , w h ich u sed the c u t- an d -pa ste t ec h n iqu e a n d w h ich w ere cons i s t entw i t h t he pl an s etouti n Y o u r R e v e n g e Is I

n T h e Ma il . O n A pr i l 5, 2002, a j ur yconvi ct ed G or ko of ea ch of the thi r t een c ount s . T he4

D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d G o rk o , in tera lia , to n in e ty -se v e n m o n th s o f im p riso n m e n t. T h is t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. G or ko cont ends thathi s convi ct i ons s houl d be vac at ed bec aus e: (1 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b ya llo w in g th e a d m iss io n o f c e rta in “ o th e r a c t” e v id e n c e in v iolati o n o f F ed era l R u le of E v iden ce 4 0 4 (b); (2) the e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rt hi s convi ct i ons ; and ( 3) t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r efus i ng t o i ncl ude a r eques t ed i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur yr egar di ng O l s zew s ki ’ s opi ni on t es t i m onythatG or ko w as the author of ce rt ai n co m m un i cat i on s. II. G or ko chal l enges t he pr opr i etyof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow the admi s s i on of thr ee gr oups of “otheract ” evi dence i n vi ol at i on of Feder al R ul e of E vi dence 404( b) , s peci fi cal l y : ( 1) a l ett erpurpor t edl ys entt o t he G overnorof Penns y l vani a byt hen Penns y l vani a A t t orneyG ener al T hom as C orbet t ; ( 2) s ever al d o c u m e n ts re latin g to D u f f y& A ss o c iate s, a law f irm ; an d (3 ) v a rio u s d o c u m e n ts s uppos edl yauthor ed byA m yK el l ogg. G or ko as s ert s thatthi s evi dence s houl d nothave been a dm i t t ed bec aus e i tw as nots o unus ual and di s t i nct i ve as t o be l i ke a s i gnatur e, and beca us e thi s evi dence w as m or e pr ej udi ci al than pr obat i ve. W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a d m it th is e v id e n c e f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 3 2 0 F .3 d 4 5 2 , 4 6 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 1 O th e r C rim e s, W ro n g s, o r A c ts.— E v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the cha r act erof a pe r s on i n or dert o s how act i on i n co nfo rm i t yt herew i t h. Itm ay , ho w ever, be ad m i ssi ble for other purpo ses, s uch as pr oof of mot i ve, oppor tuni t y , i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, id e n tity, o r a b s e n c e o f

m is ta k e o r a c c id e n t . . . .

5 Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 404( b) i s “i ncl us i ve, notexcl us i ve, and [i t ] emphasi zes 1 admi s s i bi l i t y . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , 9 8 0 F .2 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). It “g e n e ra lly pr ohi bi t s t he i nt r oduct i on of evi dence of extr i ns i c ac t s thatm i ghtadver s el yr efl ecton the act or ’ s char act er , unl es s t hatevi dence bear s upon a r el evanti s s ue i n t he ca s e . . . . ” H uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 485 U . S. 681, 685 ( 1988) . I n H uddl es t on , th e S u p r e me C our tgave fourgui del i nes on t he admi s s i bi l i t yof pr i orbad ac tevi dence : ( 1) the evi dence m us thave a pr operpurpos e; ( 2) i tm us tbe r el evantunderR ul es 401 and 402; ( 3) i t s pr obat i ve val ue mustoutw ei gh i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ect underR ul e 403; and ( 4) t he courtm us tchar ge the j uryt o cons i derthe evi dence onl yfort he l i m i t ed purpos e forw hi ch i tw as admi t t ed. U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , 980 F. 2d 883, 886 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng H uddl es t on , 48 5 U. S. a t 6 9 1 -9 2 ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ega , 285 F. 3d 256, 261 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( r ei t er at i ng t he fourgui del i nes enumer at ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n H uddl es t on ) . T hus , “the propo nen tm ustcl earl yart i culat e ho w that evi den ce fi t s i nto a chain of l og i cal i nferences, no l i nk of w hi ch maybe the i nfer ence thatthe def endanthas the pr opens i t yt o comm i tt he cr i m e cha r ged. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Hi m elw r i ght , 4 2 F . 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T he governm entoppos ed G or ko’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude the A t t orney6

G ener al l et t er , ar gui ng t hati tw as cr i t i cal beca us e i ts how ed thatG or ko, “des pi t e w hathe c laim s, e n g a g e s in c u t an d p a ste a n d m a k in g - u sin g o th e r p e o p le’ s s ig n a tu re s a n d th e ir l et t erhead t o s end mai l . ” I n addi t i on, the governm entas s ert ed thatthe exhi bi tw as cons i s t entw i t h t he pl an l ai d outi n t he book Y o u r R e v e n g e Is I

n T h e Ma il , fo u n d in G or ko’ s form erbedr oom athi s father ’ s hous e. T he r ecor d as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng the h a n d w ritten ro u g h d ra f

t o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l lette r, w h ich G o rk o a d m itt e d w a s in h is handw r i t i ng, t he typed dr aftof thatl et t er , and the r es ul t s of the exa m i nat i on of the t ypew r i t err i bbon, es t abl i s hes G or ko’ s author s hi p of the A t t orneyG ener al l et t er . T he r efe r ence s i n t he A t t or neyG ener al l et t ert o t he al l eged a r s on and i ns ur ance fr aud by O l s zew s ki ’ s father - i n- l aw , corrupt i on i n l ocal pol i t i cs , O l s zew s ki ’ s br other ’ s convi ct i on o f b an k rob b ery , an d o ther a ll eg ed p erso n al m isde ed s, also co n n ec t G o rko to the let ters s entt o O l s zew s ki . M or eover , t hi s evi dence demonstr at ed thatG or ko us ed both t he pl an s etouti n t he book Y

o u r R e v e n g e Is I

n T h e Ma iland the s ame gr amm at i cal err or– the err oneous “i t ’ s ” fort he pos s es s i ve pr onoun – t hatappea r ed i n s ever al of the comm uni cat i ons t o O l s zew s ki and G or ko’ s father . B eca us e the purpos e of the A t t orney G ener al l et t erw as t o es t abl i s h t hati tw as author ed bythe s ame per s on thatauthor ed the O lsz e w sk i co m m u n ica tio n s, th e p u rp o se w a s p ro p e r, th e e v id e n c e w a s c lea rlyre lev a n t, an d there w as n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n b ythe D istri ct C o u rtin co n clud ing that itw as m o re pr obat i ve than pr ej udi ci al . I nas m uch as the D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded the j uryw i t h a gener al l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on i n t he cha r ge, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterrbydeny i ng the7

m o ti o n in li m ine to ex clud e the ad m issi o n o f th e A tt o rne yG en era l l ett er. N ordo w e fi nd anyabus e of di s cr et i on i n t he admi s s i on of the document s found dur i ng a cons ents ear ch bea r i ng t he l ett erhead “ D uffy& A s s oci at es . ” W e agr ee w i t h t he governm entt hatt he document s demonstr at ed G or ko’ s abi l i t yt o ut i l i ze the cut - and- pas t e t echn i qu e t hat w as used o n o ne o f t he lett ers t o O l szew ski . M oreove r, the return add res s on t he l et t er , as t he governm entpoi nt ed outt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w as actual l yus ed by G or ko forbus i nes s purpos es . A ccor di ngl y , ther e w as a pr operpurpos e forthe admi s s i on of thes e document s . I ndeed, G or ko does notdi s put e thatthi s evi dence w as r el evant , and a n in stru c tio n b yth e D istric t Ju d g e a p p ro p ria telylim ited th e p u rp o se f o r w h ich th is evi dence w as admi t t ed. G o rko co n tend s, h o w ev er, th at th e D u ff y& A sso ciates d o cu m en ts w ere m o re p re ju d icia l th a n p ro b a tiv e in lig h t o f th e ir b iza rre c o n ten t. T o b e su re , the d o c u m e n ts w er e bi zarr e bec aus e of thei rs ens at i onal al l egat i ons of i m pr operand i l l egal conduct , but t heyw er e no more bi zarr e than the comm uni cat i ons t o O l s zew s ki . A s a r es ul t , the D uffy & A sso ciates c u t- an d -pa ste d o cu m en ts, w h ich w ere clea rl yli n k ed to G o rko , w ere co n sist en t w ith h is ad h ere n ce to the b o o k ’s plan fo r ex ac ti n g rev en g e a n d w ere m o re pr obat i ve than pr ej udi ci al . Fort hatr eas on, w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on byal l ow i ng t hi s evi dence t o be admi t t ed. Fi nal l y , G or ko ci t es as err orthe admi s s i on of var i ous l et t er s al l egedl yauthor ed by A m yK el l ogg, a t el evi s i on new s r epor t erw ho once w or ked w i t h G or ko and w as8

s ubs equent l yaff

i l i at ed w i t h a s t at i on i n N ew J er s ey . T he governm entar gued thatthe K el l ogg document s , s om e of w hi ch w er e found i n G or ko’ s bedr oom athi s father ’ s hous e, w e re n e c e ss a ryto sh o w : (1 ) th a t G o rk o u se d th e c u t-a n d -p a ste tec h n iq u e th a t w a s u se d in a l et t ert o O l s zew s ki ; ( 2) t hatG or ko fol l ow ed the pl an l ai d outi n t he Y o u r R ev en g e Is In T h e Ma ilbook; ( 3) t hatG or ko err oneous l yus ed the contr act i on “i t ’ s ” forthe pos s es s i ve pr onoun, as he di d i n s ever al of the comm uni cat i ons ; and ( 4) thatG or ko us ed the t erm t he

“ a v e n g in g a n g e l,” w h ic h is a ls o c o n ta in e d in a th re a te n in g c o m m u n ic a tio n to h is f a th e r. A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatther e w as a pr operpurpos e under R u le 4 0 4 (b ) f

o r a d m itt in g th e K e llo g g d o c u m e n ts. T h e c u m u lativ e e v id e n c e w a s c lea rly relev an t and a li m it ing instruction w as g iven b ythe C o u rtb ef o re the se e x h ibit s w ere pr es ent ed. A gai n, G or ko ar gues t hatthes e document s w er e more pr ej udi ci al than pr obat i ve. W e fi nd no abus e byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n concl udi ng thatthe K el l ogg d o c u me n t s we r e mo r e p r o b a t i v e . T h i s e v i d e n c e wa s i mp o r t a n tt o th e p r o s e c u t i o n a n d we not e thatanyunfai rpr ej udi ce w as el i m i nat ed bythe r edac t i on of the author ’ s oppos i t i on t o Pr es i dentC l i nt on and hi s pr edi ct i on of C l i nt on’ s death. III . G or ko al s o chal l enged the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence on eac h countof m ai l i ng t hr eat eni ng comm uni cat i ons . W e “r evi ew [] the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i n t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he governm entand mustcr edi tal l avai l abl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the governm ent . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ddi ck , 156 F. 3d 505, 509 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . I n l i ghtof our9

co n clus ion that the “ o ther a cts” e v iden ce w as a p p rop ri atelyad m itted u n d er R u le 40 4 (b), w e conc l ude thatt her e i s m or e than s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tG or ko’ s convi ct i on on e a c h c o u n t in th e in d ic tm e n ts . G or ko s ubm i t s , how ever , t hatC ountE l even c annots t and bec aus e the l ett er , w hi ch h e a d m itt e d h e a u th o re d , d id n o t co n tain a th re a t to in ju re O lsz e w sk i. A lth o u g h G o rk o is c o rre c t th a t th e lette r c o u ld b e c o n stru e d a s in n o c u o u s, th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is convi ct i on on t hi s counti s notl i m i t ed t o t he l ett erhe author ed. R ather , the evi dence befor e the j ur yi ncl uded the l et t er , t he ci r cumst ance s thatexi s t ed w hen O l s zew s ki r ece i ved the l et t er , and O l s zew s ki ’ s per cept i on thatthe l ett erw as anotherthr eat . Fr om th is e v id e n c e , a ju ryc o u ld re a so n a b lyf in d th a t th e c o m m u n ica tio n c o n tain e d a th re a t to in ju re . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Zavr el , 3 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Ma lik , 16 F. 3d 45, 49 ( 2d C i r . 1994) . T her e i s no bas i s fordi s turbi ng G or ko’ s convi ct i on on C ountE l even. I V. G or ko’ s fi nal ar gum enti s t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed, aft erthe cha r ge had a l r eady been r ead t o t he j ur yw i t houtobj ect i on, byr efus i ng hi s r eques tt o gi ve a s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i on r egar di ng O l s zew s ki ’ s opi ni on t es t i m onythatG or ko w as the perpetr at orof the var i ous l et t er s . “A cour terr s i n r efus i ng a r eques t ed i ns t ruct i on onl yi f the omi t t ed i nst ruct i on i s corr ect , i s not s ub st anti al l ycov ered byotheri nst ruct i on s, and i s so i m por t antt hati t s om i s s i on pr ej udi ced the def endant . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 183, F. 3dW e recogn i ze t hat G orko assert s i n h i s pro se s ubm i s s i ons on appea l thathi s tr i al 2 couns el w as i neff

ect i ve. A s w e expl ai ned i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 271- 72 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , “i ti s pr efe r abl e thats uch cl ai m s be cons i der ed on col l at er al r evi ew r athert han on di r ectappea l . ” 2 3 1 , 2 5 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e f in d n o e rro r b yth e D istric t C o u rt. Im m e d iate lya f ter O lsz e w sk i tes tifie d in th a t r e g a rd , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt in s tru c te d th e ju ry to d is re g a rd O ls z e w s k i’ s s ta te m e n t. W e m u st p re su m e th a t th e ju ryf o llo w e d th e c o u rt’s lim iti n g in stru c tio n a n d c o n sid e re d it o n ly f o r i ts lim ite d p u rp o s e . See G i van , 3 2 0 F . 3 d at 46 2 . M o reo v er, as the D istri ct C o u rt p o in ted o u t, t o g iv e a se p a ra te in stru c tio n a f ter th e ju ryw a s c h a rg e d a n d w a s re a d yto del i ber at e w oul d have r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce t o G or ko byhi ghl i ght i ng the fa ctthat O l s zew s ki , t he vi ct i m of a maj or i t yof the thr eat eni ng comm uni cat i ons , cons i der ed G or ko to b e th e p e rp e tr a to r. W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 2