Opinion ID: 564323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ianniello's Bias Defense

Text: 78 During the government's case-in-chief, the only evidence presented against Matthew Ianniello was tape-recorded evidence. All of this evidence was gathered by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who--pursuant to their obligation to minimize the conversations they were taping--switched the tape recorder on and off, selectively recording Ianniello's conversations. From these tape recordings, the FBI agents prepared transcripts, which were ultimately submitted to the jury. 79 Ianniello prepared a similar set of transcripts from the tapes, but they differed from the government's versions in numerous instances. Based on these differences as well as on the agents' opportunity to select what they recorded, one of Ianniello's defenses was that the FBI agents were biased against Ianniello, and deliberately selected their recordings so as to reflect unfavorably on him. A major part of the defense was that the agents' bias was established by their mistranscribing of Ianniello's conversations. 80 During cross-examination of the FBI agents, counsel for Ianniello attempted to examine the agents on the subject of their alleged bias against him, and particularly on the instances of mistranscription. At numerous points in the record, Judge Lowe made it clear that such inquiries into the intent and motivation of the agents in preparing the tapes and transcripts would have to wait until Ianniello's own case. At one point, she said: 81 I have made the blanket rule that there will be no more making these witnesses their own [referring to the defendants] for purposes of impugning the integrity of those witnesses. They are going to have to do it on their own case. 82 At the same time, Judge Lowe recognized the propriety of Ianniello's bias defense, as this colloquy demonstrates: 83 THE COURT: Wait a minute, I'm not finished. If you as the defense lawyer believe that you can demonstrate in your case a pattern of these errors which would lead a jury to infer some kind of bias or prejudice or just plain venality on the part of these agents, you have every right to do that. 84 I have consistently said you have the right to do that. That's why I do not see what the problem is. 85