Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/759/1099/260106/
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 00:05:04
Document Index: 303400523

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3742', '§ 2510', '§ 2518', '§ 843', '§ 843', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 843']

United States of America v. Adams, Tyrone, Appellant in No. 84-5455.united States of America v. Didonato, Thomas, John Doe, A/k/a "big Tommy" Being Aresident of 2833 Ford St., Brooklyn, N.y.appeal of Thomas Didonato, in No. 84-5456.united States of America v. Hairston, John A/k/a "rip", Appellant in No. 84-5457.united States of America v. Alongi, Anthony A/k/a "tony", Appellant in No. 84-5458.united States of America v. Viscito, Michael A/k/a "morgan", Appellant in No. 84-5459.united States of America v. Mustacchio, Joseph A/k/a "joe Mustache", Appellant in No. 84-5460.united States of America v. Brooks, Clifton Raymond A/k/a "shotsie", Appellant in No. 84-5461.united States of America v. Gallicchio, Nicholas A/k/a "monk", Appellant in No. 84-5480, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1985) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1985 › United States of America v. Adams, Tyrone, Appellant in No. 84-5455.united States of America v. Dido...
United States of America v. Adams, Tyrone, Appellant in No. 84-5455.united States of America v. Didonato, Thomas, John Doe, A/k/a "big Tommy" Being Aresident of 2833 Ford St., Brooklyn, N.y.appeal of Thomas Didonato, in No. 84-5456.united States of America v. Hairston, John A/k/a "rip", Appellant in No. 84-5457.united States of America v. Alongi, Anthony A/k/a "tony", Appellant in No. 84-5458.united States of America v. Viscito, Michael A/k/a "morgan", Appellant in No. 84-5459.united States of America v. Mustacchio, Joseph A/k/a "joe Mustache", Appellant in No. 84-5460.united States of America v. Brooks, Clifton Raymond A/k/a "shotsie", Appellant in No. 84-5461.united States of America v. Gallicchio, Nicholas A/k/a "monk", Appellant in No. 84-5480, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1985) Argued March 25, 1985. Decided April 15, 1985. Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc in No. 84-5456 Denied May 10, 1985. Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc in No. 84-5460 Denied May 31, 1985
Appellants' main contention is that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the statements of Valvano, a coconspirator. They contend that the government failed either to demonstrate the unavailability of the coconspirator or produce him at trial, as required by the confrontation clause, and therefore the statements could not be admitted. Because resolution of this issue involves the interpretation and application of legal precepts, our standard of review is plenary. Universal Minerals v. C.A. Hughes & Co., 669 F.2d 98, 102-03 (3d Cir. 1981).
At the outset, we note that the district court correctly determined that to admit the coconspirator's statements, it must rule both that the statements have the required indicia of reliability, see United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 256 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 344, 78 L. Ed. 2d 311 (1983), and that the coconspirator is unavailable. DiDonato App. at A183. The district court, however, based its finding of unavailability on the government's assertion that Valvano would not testify truthfully if he took the stand. Id. at A184. The credibility of a witness is not a proper ground for finding him to be unavailable for purposes of the confrontation clause. Notwithstanding this ruling, we still must affirm the judgment of the district court if the decision is correct, regardless of the correctness of the reasoning leading to that decision. Myers v. American Dental Association, 695 F.2d 716, 725 n. 14 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1106, 103 S. Ct. 2453, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1333 (1983). A careful examination of the record in this case convinces us that the government did meet the unavailability requirement.
Finally, appellants maintain that because the confrontation clause requires the government to make a "good faith effort" to obtain a witness's testimony, Inadi, 748 F.2d at 819, the government should have granted Valvano use immunity. Not only is this argument without merit, but appellants raise the issue in a tangential manner, never indicating whether the argument was presented to the trial court. See DiDonato Reply Brief at 5 n. 3. The decision to grant immunity is reserved to the discretion of the executive branch. See In re Grand Jury Matter, 673 F.2d 688, 696 (3d Cir.) (Sloviter, J., concurring), cert. denied sub nom. United States v. Doe, 459 U.S. 1015, 103 S. Ct. 375, 74 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1982). Moreover, because the trial court had no opportunity to address this issue, we decline to reach it here. See Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 539 F.2d 929 (3d Cir. 1976).
Appellants moved for a new trial under F.R.Crim.P. 33 based on newly discovered evidence about a prior crime of Stanley Buglione, one of the government's key witnesses. Our standard of review for the denial of a Rule 33 motion is abuse of discretion. United States v. Iannelli, 528 F.2d 1290, 1292 (3d Cir. 1976).
Additionally, appellants Alongi and Mustacchio base their motion for a new trial on the theory that the government's failure to disclose Buglione's participation in the robbery violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Under Brady, a new trial is justified when "the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment...." Id. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196. In United States v. Oxman, 740 F.2d 1298, 1313 (3d Cir. 1984), we held that:
Appellants contend that the district court erred in admitting into evidence weapons seized from various members of the conspiracy. Appellants maintain that, under F.R.Evid. 403, the weapons were more prejudicial than probative. We review the Rule 403 decision under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 269-70 (3d Cir. 1983).
Weapons may be as much "tools of the trade" as the most commonly recognized narcotics paraphernalia. United States v. Picklesimer, 585 F.2d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1978). The police seized the weapons from the homes of Thomas DiDonato, a major supplier of cocaine to the conspiracy, and Glenn DelaMotte, a member of the inner circle of the narcotics conspiracy. The weapons thus had probative value as evidence of the large scale of the conspiracy and the type of protection the conspirators felt they needed to protect their operation. Appellants, however, urge that the types of weapons seized, including an Uzi submachine gun, were overly prejudicial because they were "weapons of extreme violence and looked like they were taken from the set of a Hollywood gangster movie." Alongi brief at 55. Weapons, of whatever kind, usually will suggest a picture of violence to a jury. "Moreover, it is well known that continued exposure to even emotion-arousing objects tends to reduce their effect." United States v. Cahalane, 560 F.2d 601, 607 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1045, 98 S. Ct. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1978). In view of the length of the trial, any prejudicial effect from the weapons is merely speculative.
More particularly, John Hairston argues that the lower court erred in not suppressing the .38 caliber handgun seized from his home at the time of his arrest. The district court concluded that police lawfully had seized the weapon in a valid search incident to arrest or as part of a consent search. In reviewing a suppression motion, "the district court's finding of narrative or historical facts are measured by the clearly erroneous test; as to the legal component of its conclusion, however, this court has plenary review." United States v. Mitlo, 714 F.2d 294, 296 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 550, 78 L. Ed. 2d 724 (1983).
In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969), the Supreme Court validated a search of the area into which an arrestee might reach for a weapon made incident to arrest. As the Court stated: "A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be...dangerous to the arresting officer...." Id. at 763, 89 S. Ct. at 2040 (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, we find appellant's distinction that the gun seized was from a dresser near to him, but to the side, to be meaningless. The district court's finding that the weapon was lawfully seized incident to arrest not being clearly erroneous, we uphold its decision not to suppress the weapon. We also need not consider appellant's argument that he did not consent to the search.
The precepts guiding our review of the variance argument are familiar. Our polestar is to determine whether "there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to uphold the jury's decision." United States v. Palmeri, 630 F.2d 192, 203 (3d Cir. 1980) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 2150, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978)), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 967, 101 S. Ct. 1484, 67 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981). See also United States v. Fischbach & Moore, 750 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1984). Additionally, Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S. Ct. 1239, 90 L. Ed. 1557 (1946), sets forth the two-pronged test appellants must meet to succeed in this specific contention: (1) that there was a variance between the indictment and the proof and (2) that the variance prejudiced some substantial right of the defendants. Id. at 752, 756, 66 S. Ct. at 1241, 1243.
United States v. DeCavalcante, 440 F.2d 1264, 1271 (3d Cir. 1971). Following the above definitions, appellants have proved a variance. The charging terms of the indictment remained constant--conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The proof, however, included evidence of appellants' involvement with an additional drug not listed in the indictment.
Having shown the variance, Kotteakos requires that appellants also show prejudice to their substantial rights. In making such a determination, we usually focus upon two issues: (1) potential for a double jeopardy problem and (2) unfair surprise to appellants that adversely affected their defense. United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723, 746 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S. Ct. 56, 42 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1974). Neither appellant raises a substantial argument that a double jeopardy problem exists. Nor does either appellant allege that his defense was prejudiced. Knowledge that the marijuana evidence would be introduced at trial was available to appellants during the pretrial phase. Appellants thus being unable to show prejudice, we find the variance to be harmless.
Appellant Viscito argues that he was denied a fair trial because the district judge restricted cross-examination about a witness's involvement with the Witness Protection Program. The extent of cross-examination, however, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. A restriction will not constitute reversible error unless it is so severe as to constitute a denial of the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and it is prejudicial to substantial rights of the defendant. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Blyden, 626 F.2d 310, 313 (3d Cir. 1980).
Alongi first argues that the trial court erred in admitting three exhibits of documents because the government had not pre-marked the evidence as the court's discovery order required. In regard to discovery matters, the district court's decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Liebert, 519 F.2d 542, 547 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 985, 96 S. Ct. 392, 46 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1975); F.R.Crim.P. 16(d) (2). Because the admission of the evidence did not prejudice appellant, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.
Appellant also contends that parts of Buglione's testimony relating to their initial meeting and three taped telephone conversations between Alongi and Valvano were irrelevant. Because the F.R.Evid. 402 relevancy decision implicates the interpretation and application of legal precepts, our review is plenary. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 269 (3d Cir. 1983).
Appellants Gallichio and Adams argue that the district court incorrectly denied their motions for a mistrial on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. In evaluating the prosecutor's conduct, we must decide "whether [his] remarks, in the context of the entire trial, were sufficiently prejudicial to violate defendant's due process rights." United States v. Scarfo, 685 F.2d 842, 849 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1170, 103 S. Ct. 815, 74 L. Ed. 2d 1014 (1983). A conviction will be reversed "only in those situations in which prejudice inures to the defendant from the challenged improprieties." United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723, 737 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S. Ct. 56, 42 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1974). In the context of the entire trial, the prosecutor's remarks, if improper at all, were either trivial or could have been blunted by a curative instruction that appellants did not request.
Appellant Mustacchio argues that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to an excessively high prison term and sentencing him in a disparate fashion from the other defendants involved in the conspiracy. In the usual criminal case, our review of a sentence imposed by the district court is extremely circumscribed. United States v. Felder, 706 F.2d 135, 137 (3d Cir. 1983). But see Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, Sec. 213(a), 98 Stat. 1837, 2011 (1984) (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (effective Nov. 1, 1986) (will allow review of sentences under limited circumstances after Act's effective date). Generally, if the sentence falls within the statutory maximum, the matter is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Dickens, 695 F.2d 765, 782 n. 26 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1092, 103 S. Ct. 1792, 76 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1983). We may review the sentence, however, if there is a showing of illegality or abuse of discretion. United States v. Fessler, 453 F.2d 953, 954 (3d Cir. 1972). The judge justified Mustacchio's sentence, which was within that prescribed by law, on a number of grounds, including his "deep involvement" with the ringleaders of the conspiracy, his previous convictions, and his unwillingness to move away from a life of crime. 2 Mustacchio App. at 481-82. Based on this reasoning, the judge did not abuse his discretion.
Appellants Mustacchio and Gallicchio also urge that the district court should not have denied their motions for severance. Our standard of review is whether the lower court abused its discretion. United States v. DiPasquale, 740 F.2d 1282, 1293 (3d Cir. 1984). Under this standard, appellants bear a heavy burden in challenging the denial of a severance. Id.
Appellants argue that a severance was required because only a small portion of the evidence related to them. However, " [a] defendant is not entitled to severance merely because the evidence against a co-defendant is more damaging than that against him." United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 62 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1977). See also United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 157, 78 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1983). Some exacerbating circumstances, such as the jury's inability to "compartmentalize" the evidence, are required. Dansker, 537 F.2d at 62.
Appellant Mustacchio urges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a bill of particulars. Again, on this issue, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 64 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 936, 92 S. Ct. 949, 30 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1972). "The denial of a motion for a bill of particulars does not amount to an abuse of discretion unless the deprivation of the information sought leads to the defendant's inability to adequately prepare his case, to avoid surprise at trial, or to avoid the later risk of double jeopardy." Id.
Appellants Adams, Alongi, Brooks and Mustacchio contend that the jury had insufficient evidence to convict them. In reviewing their convictions, we must determine whether "there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to uphold the jury's decision." United States v. Palmeri, 630 F.2d 192, 203 (3d Cir. 1980) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 2150, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978)), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 967, 101 S. Ct. 1484, 67 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981). We find appellants' argument to be totally without merit.
Brooks's argument is much more general. He argues that he had no connection to the conspiracy whatsoever. The taped telephone conversations, however, the lactose seized during his arrest, and the quantities of cocaine he received clearly proved that he was distributing narcotics. Brooks argues, relying on Kotteakos, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S. Ct. 1239, that his dealings were solely with Glen DelaMotte and that he had no connection with the larger conspiracy. Knowledge of all the particular aspects, goals, and participants of a conspiracy, however, is not necessary to sustain a conviction. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 558, 68 S. Ct. 248, 257, 92 L. Ed. 154 (1947). We find the evidence sufficient to prove Brooks knew he was part of a larger drug operation.
Mustacchio first contends that the government conducted the wiretaps in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520. Specifically, he alleges that (1) the government's applications for the wiretaps failed to set forth an adequate showing of probable cause, (2) the government failed to exhaust other avenues of investigation, (3) the government failed to minimize non-pertinent conversations, (4) the government failed to obtain proper authority for the wiretaps from the Attorney General, and (5) the government failed to name defendant Mustacchio as a target in the second application for an extension. Because these issues implicate the application and interpretation of legal precepts, our standard of review is plenary. Universal Minerals, 669 F.2d at 102-03. We hold that the government adhered to the requirements necessary to operate a wiretap and that the trial court properly admitted the evidence against Mustacchio.
To obtain authorization for an interception of a wire communication, the government must show that: "(a) there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 ... (b) there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception...." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3). Probable cause clearly was evident on the face of the affidavit in support of the wiretap. The affidavit detailed the activities occurring at 79 Davenport Avenue, discovered through several informants and a number of undercover drug purchases.
Likewise, the affidavit explained why normal investigative techniques would be of no avail. The danger involved and the strong possibility of discovery of the investigation merited use of the wiretaps. Moreover, the government need not exhaust all possible traditional investigative techniques prior to applying for the wiretap. United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838, 850 (3d Cir. 1976).
Mustacchio also argues that the wiretap was illegal because authorized by Assistant Attorney General Archer of the Tax Division, not the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. Section 2516(1), 18 U.S.C., permits an Assistant Attorney General to authorize a wiretap. Appellant alleges that there were conditions on Archer's authorization of the wiretap, but introduces no proof that Assistant Attorney General Archer's signature was in violation of these conditions. The authorization for the wiretap is thus presumed to be facially valid. United States v. Jabara, 618 F.2d 1319, 1326-27 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856, 101 S. Ct. 154, 66 L. Ed. 2d 70 (1980).
Finally, Mustacchio argues that the wiretap was improper because the government failed to name Mustacchio as a target in its application for a second extension of the wiretap. The information necessary to name appellant as a target, such as transcripts of telephone calls involving Mustacchio, was not available to the government until after the application was filed. Moreover, even had this justification for not naming Mustacchio been unacceptable, suppression of taped conversations would not be the proper remedy. United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 435-37, 439, 97 S. Ct. 658, 671-73, 674, 50 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1977).
Appellant Alongi contends that the trial court's refusal, on relevance grounds, to permit him to read into evidence parts of the agent's affidavit that formed the basis for the wiretap was error. We do not so hold. Our review of this relevancy decision is plenary. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 269 (3d Cir. 1983).
Finally, Mustacchio alleges that the lower court erred by admitting into evidence transcripts of the recorded conversations. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. United States v. Cahalane, 560 F.2d 601, 607 (3d Cir. 1977). The trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion in admitting the transcripts. The transcripts were a useful aid to the jurors. Furthermore, the judge instructed the jury that the tape recording controlled over the transcript in case of error or ambiguity. The transcripts thus were properly admitted into evidence.
Because resolution of this issue turns on statutory construction involving the interpretation and application of legal precepts, our standard of review is plenary. Universal Minerals, 669 F.2d at 102-03. In reviewing the particular jury instruction, we must "determine whether the charge, taken as a whole and viewed in the light of the evidence, fairly and adequately submits the issues in the case to the jury." Ayoub v. Spencer, 550 F.2d 164, 167 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907, 97 S. Ct. 2952, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1079 (1977). See also United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 675, 95 S. Ct. 1903, 1913, 44 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1975).
Although this issue has been alluded to in other opinions, see United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919, 937 (3d Cir. 1982), this court has not discussed in detail whether a defendant must commit or agree to commit personally predicate acts of racketeering to be found guilty of a RICO conspiracy. Other courts of appeals, however, have devoted much time to this issue and have reached conflicting results. Compare United States v. Carter, 721 F.2d 1514, 1529-31 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Morris v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 105 S. Ct. 89, 83 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1984); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1208, 1220 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206, 103 S. Ct. 1194, 75 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1983) (personal commission not required) with United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Rabito v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 105 S. Ct. 118, 83 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1984); United States v. Winter, 663 F.2d 1120, 1136 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1011, 103 S. Ct. 1250, 75 L. Ed. 2d 479 (1983) (personal commission required). We now decide that to be convicted of a RICO conspiracy, a defendant must agree only to the commission of the predicate acts, and need not agree to commit personally those acts.
We are particularly impressed by the analysis of Judge Johnson in United States v. Carter, 721 F.2d at 1528-31, and adopt that reasoning as our own. As the Eleventh Circuit noted, the statutory language itself does not require the personal commission of predicate offenses. "When read together, the statutes speak only to 'conspiring to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, i.e., two acts of racketeering activity within at least ten years of each other.' " Id. at 1529. Moreover, requiring the government to prove that each defendant agreed to commit personally two predicate acts would severely dilute the effectiveness of the RICO conspiracy remedy, and thwart Congress's objectives in enacting those statutes. See id.; United States v. Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 581 F. Supp. 279, 331 (D.N.J. 1984).
Appellants Adams, Alongi, and Viscito contend that the district court erred by not dismissing the telephone facilitation counts, under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), because the counts failed to name a particular controlled substance. They rely on United States v. Hinkle, 637 F.2d 1154 (7th Cir. 1981), for the proposition that a telephone count that does not name a particular controlled substance is defective.
In Hinkle, the court held that an indictment for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) must specify certain details about the offense. 637 F.2d at 1158. The telephone counts in this case met all the requirements of Hinkle except that they did not name a particular controlled substance. The indictment went beyond the requirements of Hinkle, however, in that it specified the exact time of the telephone communication on a particular date and the persons involved in the communication. Furthermore, unlike Hinkle, the indictment set forth the offense that was facilitated by use of a telephone, a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In contrast, the indictment in Hinkle merely charged facilitation of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) without identifying which of six types of acts prohibited by that section the defendant had facilitated. The court's objections in Hinkle to the bareness of the indictment simply do not apply to this case.
Moreover, we do not regard the holding of Hinkle as an inflexible test of the sufficiency of an indictment charging a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). The district court in this case applied the test of Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1974), to judge the sufficiency of the indictment. In Hamling, the Supreme Court stated: