09 -1 17 6- cr

USA v. Young UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s um m ary or der do not have prec edent i al ef f ect . C i t at i on t o a s um m ary or der f i l ed on or af

t er January 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itt e d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e llate P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen ci t i ng a sum m ary order i n a docum ent f i l ed w i t h t hi s court , a part y m ust c i t e ei t her t he F ederal A pp en dix or an el ectron i c d ataba se (w i t h t he n otat i on “su m m ary or de r”). A p arty cit i ng a su m m ary ord er m ust se r v e a c o p y o f it on a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec on d Circuit, hel d at the 2 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Street, in t he City of New York, on 3 the 6 day of July, two thousand ten.

th 4 5 PRESENT : 6 7 RALPH K . W INTER, 8 JOSEPH M. McLAUG HLIN, 9 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 10 Ci rcu it J ud ges. 11 12 13 UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, 14 Ap pe lle e , 15 16 v. 09 -11 76 -cr 17 Summ ary Or de r 18 JO SE PH YO UN G, als o k no wn as J oe 19 Black, 20 Defendant-Appell ant , 21 22 GINO GA LE ST RO , J OH N T UF AREL LI , 23 also known as Litt le John, STEFAN 24 CICALE, JOSE GARCIA, 25 De fen da nts . 26 27 28 W ins ton Y. Ch an , A ssi stant Unit ed St ate s 29 Attor ne y (B enton J. C am

pb ell , Unit ed

St ate s 30 Attorney, and David C. James, Jack Dennehy, 31 W ill iam Sc ha ef fer, A ssi stant Unit ed

St ate s 32 Attorneys, on thebr ief ), Unit ed

St ate s 33 Attor ne y’s Of fi ce, Easte rn D ist

ric t of Ne w 34 York, Brooklyn, NY, for Ap pe lle e .2

1 Ro be rt A . S olo way, Ro thm an S chne ide r 2 Soloway & Ste rn, LLP, New York, NY, for 3 Defendant-Appell ant . 4 5 6 UPON D UE CON SIDERATION , it is her eby ORDERE D, ADJUD GED AND DE CREED 7 that the j udgment of the district cour t is AFFIRMED. 8 Defend an t- App el la ntJo se phYoung ap pe al s fr om the Marc h 1 3, 20 09 ju dg mentof c on vi ction 9 entered aftera jury found him guilty of 24 ch arges, incl uding racket eering, murder in aid of 10 ra ck et ee ri ng , mur de r f orhi re , c ar

ja ck in g , e x t o r ti on at e c ol le ct io n o f cr ed it , a ndva ri ou s fi re arms 11 offenses, all stemm ing from his involvement with the Bonanno Crime Fam ily. Young argues on 12 appeal thatthe distr ict court(Ross, J. ) erred by e mpaneling an anonymous and escorted jury and 13 abused its di screti on by admitting into evidence a homem ade “movie trai ler” tha t featured Young 14 ands ev er al of his a ssociate s. We assum e the part ies’ familiarit y with the underl ying facts and 15 procedural history of the ca se. 16 “In

rev iew inganan onym ou s jury c ha lle ng e, we ‘ba lan ce t he defendant’ s inter est

in 17 conducting meaningful voir dir e and in maintaining th e pr es umption of innocence, agains t [the 18 jury’s] inte rest in r emaining free from real or t hreatened violenc e and the public int erest i n having 19 the jur

y re nd er a fa ir and im parti al v erd ict .’” Uni ted

Sta tes v. Qu ino nes , 51 1 F. 3d 2 89 , 2 95 (2d

Ci r. 20 20 07 ) (q

uo tin g Unite d S

tates v . A mu so , 21 F.3d 1251, 1264 (2d Cir.1994)). “As a ge neral rul e, a 21 dis tri ct c ourt m ay o rde r th e em pane lin g o f an ano nym ou s ju ry u po n ‘( a) c on clu din g th at the re i s 22 str on g re aso n to be lie ve th e jur y ne ed s pro tec tio n, and

(b ) t ak ingre aso na

ble p rec autio ns to m ini m ize 23 any p rej ud ici al e ff ect s o n th e d ef

en dant and

to e ns ure that hi s f

un dam ental rig hts are pro tec ted .’” 24 Un ite d Sta tes v . S tew ar t , 590 F.3d 93, 124 (2d Cir. 2009) (quot ing United States v. Paccione , 949 25 F. 2d

1 18 3, 1 19 2 (2 d C ir. 19 91 )); ac co rd Uni ted States v . V

ar io , 9 43 F. 2d

23 6, 24 0-4 1 (2 d C ir. 19 91 ).3

1 If “there is evidence to s upport the d ist rict cour t’s finding of reason t o believe t he jury needs 2 pro tec tio n, ” and

if “th e cou

rt ha s tak enreas on ab le pr eca uti on s to m ini m ize any p rej ud ici al e ff ect s 3 on the de fe nd ant an d to en sure p rot ect ion of his fu nd am ental rig hts, the decision to em pane l an 4 an onym ou s jury is rev iew ed o nly f or ab us e o f d isc ret ion .” Ste wa rt , 590 F.3d at 124 (quoting Un ite d 5 States v. Thai , 2 9 F .3 d 7 85 , 8 01 (2d Ci r. 1 99 4)) . 6 Here, we see no abuse of discr etion in t he dis trictcourt ’s de cision to empanel an anonymous 7 jur y. Whil e, “[ t] he inv oc ati on of the wo rds ‘or ganiz ed

cri m e, ’ ‘mob, ’ or

‘Ma fi a, ’ un les s th ere is 8 s o m e th in g m o re , d o e s n o t w arr an t anan o ny m o u s jur y, ” Vario , 943 F.2d at 241, in this case the 9 “so m eth ing m ore ” w as s ati sf ied bythe go ve rnm ent’s showin g th at tria l ev ide nc e w ou ld d ep ict a 10 ho rri fi c “patte rn of viol en ce by

the d ef en dant and

his ass oc iat es, ” id. , including Young’s murder of 11 anass oc iat e an d s ub seq ue nt dis m em

be rm ent and

b urn ing o f the m an ’s co rps e wh enth is a sso ciate 12 wa s ad

jud ge d to have boasted exc ess ive ly r eg ard ingthe gro up ’s c rim es. Al tho ug h Y oung wa s 13 ap parentlya lo w- lev el f igu re i n th e B on anno org an izatio n, an d th e d istric t co urt ack no wl ed ge d th at 14 it was therefore “uncl ear preci sely what duty t he fam ily owed to [him] . . . and to what lengths the 15 fam ily might go in order t o assist hi m,” Sept. 12, 2008 Order at 4, the governm ent m ade a sufficient 16 showing of the Bonanno organizat ion’s will ingness to subvert t he judicia l process, seeVa rio , 943 17 F. 2d

at 2 41 (in dic ati ng that “a

de m on str ab le h ist ory

or lik eli ho od

of ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e o n th e p art 18 of the de fe nd ant or

oth ers a cti ng o n his b eh alf ” can s up po rt e m

pane lm ent of

anan onym ou s jury) . 19 Mo reo ve r, the e vid en ce int rod uc ed at tria l de m on str ate d th at Y oung him sel f w as w ill ingto s ub ve rt 20 the p roc eed ing s byin du cin g an oth er to pro vid e him w itha f als e alibi. Se e Q uin on es , 5 11 F. 3d at 21 29 5 (“ In r ev iew ing[e vid en ce d em on str ati ng the de fe nd ant’s will ing ne ss t o tam pe r w iththe jud ici al 22 pro ces s] , w e ar e n ot l im ite d to the fa cts av ail ab le at th e ti m e o f a ctu al e m pane lm ent; r ath er, we m ay 23 co ns ider anyrel ev ant ev ide nc e in the rec ord .” ). T he sig nif icant m ed ia i nte res t in

Yo un g’s tri al4

1 further support ed the dist rict cour t’s deci sion to empanel an a no ny mous jury. See, e.g. , Un ite d 2 States v. W

ong , 40 F.3d 1347, 1377 (2d Cir . 1994) (“The prospe ct of publicit y militates in favor of 3 jur y ano nym ityto p rev ent expo sure o f t he jur ors to i nti m idatio n o r haras sm ent.” ). 4 No r di d th e d istric t court ab us e its disc ret ion by adm itt ingint o e vid en ce t he ho m em ad e f

ilm 5 featuring Young and his as sociates . Federa l Rule of Evidence 403 all ows rel evant evidenc e to be 6 ex clu de d b y th e tr ial co urt if “it s p rob ative value is su bs tantia llyoutw eig he d b y” su chdang ers as 7 “unf

air pre jud ice .” “O n ap pe al, our re vie w of the dis tri ct c ourt’ s R

ule 40 3 ru lin gs is t ightlylim ite d 8 in recognit ion of a trial court’s s uperior posi tion to ass ess both the pr obative val ue and the 9 prejudici al potenti al of evidence pre sented at t rial; those ruli ngs must stand absentan abuse of 10 dis cre tio n. ” Un ite d S tates v . R oy er , 549 F.3d 886, 901 (2d C ir. 2008). The dis trictcourt found the 11 film – which a mong other t hings s howed Young and various co- defendants togethe r at the mansion 12 at wh ich

Y oung w as all eg ed

to h av e kil led

th eir a sso ciate – to be p rob ati ve , an d Young concedes 13 that it

wa s re lev ant ev ide nc e. Ap pe llant’ s B r. at 33 , 3 5. Al tho ug h Yo un g co nte nd s that the fil m wa s 14 pre

jud ici al b eca

us e it de pic ted him in t he “ro le o f a

m urd ere r,” id. at 3 2, the trailerdid not i n f act 15 show him killing anyone, and its depiction of him wearing dark clothing a nd a mask and carrying 16 a f

ire arm co rro bo rat ed

tri al t est im ony re gardi ng his use of su chtoo ls i n th e co urs e o f h is c rim es. 17 Ad dit ion all y, the dis tri ct c ourt c autio ne d th e jury t hat th e ev ents d ep ict ed

in t he fi lm we re p ure 18 fi cti on , th ere byred uc ingthe po tentia l f

or p rej ud ice . Se e R oy er , 549 F.3d at 901. 19 W e have consider ed all of Young’s otherarguments and find them to be without merit. For 20 the reasons stated above , the judgment of the distri ct court i s AFFIRMED. 21 22 23 FOR THE COURT : 24 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 25 26 27