Opinion ID: 557995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restriction of Paci's Testimony.

Text: 38 After calling two character witnesses, Paci took the stand in his defense. At several points during his direct testimony, the court sustained objections of opposing counsel to questions posed by Paci's attorney, preventing Paci from describing conversations he had with Puzzo and, on one occasion, with Alleva. According to Paci, these conversations, which were intended to constitute the crux of his defense by explaining his presence in potentially culpable situations, were improperly restricted. Specifically, Paci points to the following testimony concerning his encounter with Alleva in Italy: 39 Q While you were in Sicily, you said you got a phone call from Mr. Puzzo? 40 A Yes. 41 Q Would you continue? 42 A Called the first time and I wasn't home, and called again and got me home. He said to me-- 43 THE COURT: You can't say what he said. You had a conversation? 44 THE WITNESS: Yes. 45 Q What did you say to him in this conversation? 46 A For what he asked me, I said yes. 47 Q Did you say anything else to him? 48 A I said why would I have to go there. 49 Q As a result of your conversation with Mr. Puzzo you then left Naples and went--I am sorry, left Sicily and went to Naples? 50 A Yes. 51 Q As a result of your discussions, did you know why you were going to Naples? 52 THE COURT: No, come on. 53 MR. PASCARELLA [defense counsel]: May we have a sidebar? 54 THE COURT: No, move ahead. 55       56 THE COURT: Why don't you pick it up when you get to Naples. 57       58 Q When you were at the hotel [in Naples] what, if anything, happened? 59 A I got a phone call from Mr. Puzzo. 60 Q Following that phone call what, if anything, happened? 61 A I told Mr. Puzzo that I-- 62 THE COURT: No, don't. What happened after that? 63 Q What did you tell Mr. Puzzo? 64 MR. SEMMELMAN [government counsel]: Objection. 65 THE COURT: Sustained. 66 MR. PASCARELLA: As to what he said? 67 THE COURT: Yes. 68 Q What happened after the phone call from Mr. Puzzo? 69 A I wanted to come home. Because my ticket-- 70 MR. SEMMELMAN: Objection. 71 THE COURT: No. 72 Q What was the reason you wanted to come home? 73 MR. SEMMELMAN: Objection. 74 THE COURT: Sustained. 75       76 Q After you got this telephone call from Mr. Puzzo, what, if anything, happened? 77 A After that phone call I got another phone call. 78 Q The person who called you, did you know the person? 79 A No. 80 Q After that phone call what happened? 81 A They told me not to worry about my ticket. 82 MR. SEMMELMAN: Objection. 83 THE COURT: Don't do that. Tell us what happened? You see, there are rules we have to follow. One of which is hearsay, except under certain circumstances, basically you can't say what someone else said to you. Do you understand that? 84 THE WITNESS: Yes. 85 THE COURT: What your lawyer is asking, what happened, okay. Listen to the question and just answer the question. 86 Q Mr. Paci, can you say what you said and what happened? But we are-- 87 MR. SEMMELMAN: I object to this. 88 THE COURT: Don't instruct him. That doesn't happen to be right. Ask a question. 89 Q After the second phone call what happened? 90       91 A Those two men picked me up and took me to another hotel. 92 Q What, if anything, happened at the other hotel, do you know? 93       94 A I had to meet a certain person named Nino Alfieri or something like that. 95 Q When you got to the hotel did you meet with anybody there? 96 A When I got to the hotel, that was with the two gentlemen. I went to the reception area and asked for Nino. He called the number and this gentleman came down. 97 The gentleman came down. He had an open shirt, full of jewelry, very macho. Macho. 98 I didn't feel comfortable. 99 Q Are you able to relate this person Nino to the second phone call made to you by a person you had not known before? 100 MR. SEMMELMAN: Objection. 101 THE COURT: Sustained. 102 When I sustain an objection don't answer. 103 Paci also maintains that the following testimony regarding a subsequent conversation with Puzzo was improperly restricted:Q Now, prior to Mr. Alleva coming to your home to pick up something did you see Mr. Puzzo? 104 A Yes. 105 Q When was the last time you had seen him prior to Mr. Alleva coming? 106 A The day before. 107 Q What happened at that time? 108 A The day before he came in and told me-- 109 MR. SEMMELMAN: Objection. 110 THE COURT: Sustained. 111 Finally, Paci points to restrictions imposed upon his testimony regarding preparations for the visit by Puzzo and Platzer to Paci at Paci's place of employment, Jay Stylist, as follows: 112 A [Puzzo] asked me if when he came around with--what is his name? The other agent, Mr. Alleva, when Mr. Alleva's partner would come around I would say whatever [Puzzo] says I should say yes. I asked him why. Do you want to know why? 113 Q Did you say anything in response? 114 A Yes. 115 Q What did you say? 116 A I wanted to know why I should say yes to something. 117 Q Did you then engage Mr. Puzzo in any further conversation? 118 A Yes. 119 Q Did he ask anything of you at that time when you asked why? 120 A Yes. 121 MR. SEMMELMAN: Objection. 122 THE COURT: Sustained. 123 MR. PASCARELLA: Not what he said. 124 THE COURT: Don't put it now in the form what he said. What question did he ask you? 125 THE WITNESS: He asked me to help him out and say yes to whatever he-- 126 THE COURT: You already testified to that. 127 Paci argues that the district court's improper restriction of his testimony deprived him of the opportunity to present a defense, thereby violating his fifth amendment right to due process and his sixth amendment right to counsel. The government responds that: (1) the issue has not been preserved for appellate review because it was not raised below; (2) viewed in the context of subsequently allowed testimony and defense counsel's summation, no significant restriction of Paci's testimony occurred; and in any event, (3) any error was harmless. Accordingly, we examine (1) the issue of waiver; (2) whether Paci's testimony was erroneously circumscribed; and (3) whether any error that occurred was in any event harmless. 128 1. Waiver. 129 It is clear from the foregoing that the trial court restricted Paci's testimony to prevent the admission into evidence of hearsay. Paci contends on appeal that the evidence as he intended to use it would not have been hearsay, or alternatively would have fallen under an exception to the hearsay rule. The government responds, however, that Paci's trial counsel failed to present this argument to the district court and thereby waived the issue. Thus, the government reasons, we may reverse only if plain error is established. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). 130 Concededly, Paci's counsel waived an opening statement, thereby precluding any initial insight into the theory of Paci's defense. On the other hand, Paci's counsel requested a sidebar conference when the trial court originally ruled adversely regarding Paci's testimony, and was rebuffed. See United States v. Pugliese, 712 F.2d 1574, 1580 (2d Cir.1983) (burden on counsel to alert court to legal basis for proffer). Paci's counsel also persisted in his attempts to elicit the testimony in question. We believe these efforts suffice to establish that Paci did not waive his right to argue this point on appeal. 131 2. The Excluded Testimony. 132 It would appear that at least some of Paci's intended testimony concerning conversations between Paci and Puzzo, and on one occasion in Naples between Paci and Alleva, was improperly excluded. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c) defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Paci contends that the conversations were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain Paci's state of mind. Thus, the conversations with Puzzo and Alleva while Paci was in Italy would assertedly have established that Paci had been duped by Puzzo into thinking he would be carrying back a package of gold jewelry, not cocaine. The subsequent excluded conversations concerning (1) delivery of the package and (2) a repeat trip to Italy by Paci would presumably have been along the same lines. Far from being offered for their truth, Paci contends that the thrust of [his] testimony is that Puzzo was lying to him. Thus, the proffered testimony was assertedly admissible because it formed the basis of Paci's knowledge at the time which provided the motive for his actions; and was evidence of Paci's probable state of mind. 133 Paci's proffered testimony regarding these conversations apparently was not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. Cf. United States v. Pedroza, 750 F.2d 187, 203 (2d Cir.1984) (statement not hearsay because offered for its patent falsity). Thus, the statements would not have been hearsay as offered, and the district court erred in excluding them. See United States v. Lambinus, 747 F.2d 592, 597 (10th Cir.1984) (testimony offered to show effect of statements on listener not hearsay), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067, 105 S.Ct. 2143, 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985); United States v. Leake, 642 F.2d 715, 720 (4th Cir.1981) (statement offered as evidence of defendant's state of mind not hearsay); United States v. Carter, 491 F.2d 625, 628-29 (5th Cir.1974) (same). 134 This is not, however, the end of the matter. As Paci concedes, the district court relaxed its restrictions as Paci's testimony proceeded and its thrust became clearer. As Paci states in his brief: 135 Eventually, the court did allow Paci to testify regarding what Puzzo asked him to do (e.g., bring gold to the United States, to introduce two individuals to a person from New York, to give a package to Agent Alleva, and to agree to go to Italy). The court did not allow Paci to explain the reason for these requests (e.g., why Puzzo wanted gold, who the Italians were, why he wanted Paci to make the introduction, why he wanted Paci to deliver a package, what the package allegedly contained, what the purpose of the proposed second trip to Italy was to be). 136 In the course of his direct examination, Paci testified that Puzzo was his good friend, his employer in the Jay Stylist beauty shop, and his former lover; that Puzzo discussed with Paci, prior to Paci's trip to Italy in November 1985, the idea of importing gold jewelry to sell in the beauty shop like pawn shops; that after this conversation, Paci went to Sicily to visit relatives, leaving with Puzzo a phone number in Italy where Paci could be contacted regarding business matters; and that Puzzo called Paci in Sicily and asked Paci to introduce two people in Italy to Puzzo's partner from New York, i.e., Alleva. 137 Paci's central complaint is that he was not allowed to develop the explanation that Puzzo misled him into believing that he was bringing back gold, not cocaine, from Italy. The trouble with this argument is that Paci twice testified that he refused to bring back any gold from Italy when Puzzo requested that he do so. His initial testimony in this regard was: 138 Q Now, prior to you going to Sicily in November 1985, did you have any discussion with Mr. Puzzo about the business at the beauty parlor? 139 A Yes. 140 Q Did he ask you anything at that time, sir? 141 A Yes. 142 Q What did he ask you? 143 A He asked me, he would want to bring in some gold, like pawn shops. 144 THE COURT: What was the question he asked you? 145 THE WITNESS: He asked me being I was in Italy that he wanted toTHE COURT: What did he ask you? 146 THE WITNESS: If I would bring gold from Italy. I said no. I thought it was a small amount. 147 Immediately thereafter, Paci's counsel returned to the subject, eliciting the following testimony: 148 Q Now, back to this discussion about the beauty parlor business and the gold, he asked you to personally bring the gold back. 149 A Yes, I said no way. 150 In his summation, Paci's counsel nonetheless suggested that in light of the prior conversation with Puzzo, Paci might have surmised that Puzzo was sending [his] partner [Alleva] over on a jewelry business deal, and later asserted that is what Mr. Paci believed to be the subject of the meetings in Naples. Aside from these suggestions, the central thrust of Paci's testimony, and of his counsel's summation, was that the government agents were lying about the events in question, and especially about Paci's alleged admissions to them, and that Paci knew nothing about any narcotics activity. 151 3. Harmless Error. 152 Although the district court erroneously cut short some questioning the responses to which would not have been hearsay, Paci was ultimately able to testify, and his counsel to argue, in support of the theory that Puzzo had misled Paci into believing that the meetings and introductions Paci undertook in Italy at Puzzo's behest were related to the importation of gold jewelry. Indeed, given Paci's repeated testimony that he had explicitly refused, prior to his trip to Italy, to bring gold jewelry back for Puzzo, his counsel's suggestions in summation probably did as much with that theory as the record would allow. Further, although we have concluded that Paci's counsel should not be charged with a waiver on this issue, we note that no offer of proof was ever made to indicate that the theory pressed by Paci on appeal was regarded as a substantial line of defense at trial. 153 The gist of the trial was a clash of credibility between agents Alleva and Platzer, on the one hand, and Paci, on the other. The jury obviously decided that fundamental issue against Paci. We conclude that in view of the weight of the evidence against Paci, and his subsequent opportunity to provide the substance of the challenged testimony, any error in restricting Paci's testimony regarding his conversations with Puzzo was harmless.