Opinion ID: 1441526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantive Impact

Text: The consequences of the erroneous admission of the plea allocutions were manifold. First, prejudice arose from the sheer number of plea allocutions admitted to prove the multiple conspiracies in this case. See United States v. Becker, 502 F.3d 122, 131 (2d Cir.2007) ([T]he sheer number of plea allocutions admitted to prove the conspiracy in this case is significant, and highlights the importance of such testimony to the government's case.). Eight separate plea allocutions, each confessing to participation in one or more conspiracies, were offered to the jury. Their repetitive nature suggested that the conspiracy was so widespread that it would be plausible for the jury to assume that defendants were participants simply by their long and close association with the attestants. See id. While the number of pleas alone would not suffice to establish a substantive impact on the outcome of the trial, their admission in this case cannot be described as merely cumulative. See, e.g., United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 88 (2d Cir.2006). The pleas described a wide and interlocking array of conspiracies that in the aggregate bolstered the government's depiction of defendants as the ringleaders of a vast criminal network. Second, many of the conspiracies were overlapping such that evidence of one tended to support the existence of another. For example, the conspiracy to murder Frederick Weiss (evidenced by Gallo's plea) led to the conspiracies to murder family members Daniel Annunziata and Gaetano Vastola because of their refusal to assist in murdering Weiss (evidenced by the pleas of Allessi, Nichola, and Riggi). Similarly, the conspiracy to murder John D'Amato led to the conspiracy to murder his brother Frank D'Amato out of concern that he would exact revenge (both conspiracies evidenced by Sclafani's binary plea). Plea allocutions confirming the existence of one of the linked conspiracies naturally reinforced the evidence of the others, creating an echo chamber of implied guilt, and amplifying the prejudicial effect of the pleas. Third, the detailed content of the plea allocutions corresponded to elements of the crimes charged against defendants, potentially bolstering the government's proof in those areas. See, e.g., Becker, 502 F.3d at 131 (finding prejudice where the content of the plea allocutions was unusually far-reaching and detailed, and touched directly on issues that were central to [the] defense). For example, in connection with his guilty plea of conspiracy to commit construction industry extortion, Stango admitted to using the influence of the Decavalcante organized crime family, [and making] threats of labor unrest and threats of possible violence to obtain payments and jobs from construction companies. Tr. 1435. Similarly, Sclafani's allocution admitted to participating in the extortion of a company called Barr Industries by use of threats. Tr. 1437. To establish extortion, the government was required to prove the use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2); see United States v. Zhou, 428 F.3d 361, 371 (2d Cir. 2005). In defending against these extortion charges, Vitabile and Schifilliti attempted to show that the unions' dealings with contractors conformed to common, legitimate business practices. See, e.g., Tr. 729-30. The Stango and Sclafani pleas undermined this defense by suggesting that Decavalcante family members used threats and violence routinely. Other allocutions similarly contained detailed information that invited the jury to make improper assumptions regarding defendants' roles in the crimes charged. [4] See, e.g., Becker, 502 F.3d at 133.