Opinion ID: 461592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Initially Raised by DePeri

Text: 15 Pre-trial Publicity and the Denial of the Jury Sequestration Motion 16 DePeri, Pecic, and Murphy argue that the extensive pre-trial publicity surrounding the scandal biased the jury and deprived them of a fair trial. In particular, appellants complain that a series of articles that appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer's Sunday magazine supplement entitled Cops on the Take, describing a related extortion scheme irrevocably tainted the trial. Appellants claim that because jury selection convened on July 9, 1984, one day after the second installment in the Inquirer series appeared, and because the majority of the prospective jurors questioned by the court admitted some knowledge of related extortion schemes, appellants were deprived of their right to a fair trial. 17 The district court's voir dire spanned four days, during which the court individually examined eighty-one jurors on the extent of their exposure to the case and the degree to which they had formed an opinion concerning the officers' conduct. Although seven of the jurors who deliberated and returned the guilty verdicts admitted that they had been exposed to the publicity surrounding the case, and two admitted to familiarity with the Inquirer series, we believe that the trial court's exhaustive voir dire ensured that appellants were not deprived of their sixth amendment right to a fair trial decided by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). 18 Voir dire is conducted under the supervision of the trial court and is left to its sound discretion. See Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 1020, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976). In a case involving extensive and allegedly inflammatory pre-trial publicity, we will find that the trial court abused its discretion only when appellants demonstrate clearly that the jurors possessed such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 2891, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984), citing Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1643. It is the rare case in which adverse pretrial publicity will create a presumption of prejudice that overrides the jurors' assurance that they can be impartial. See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S.Ct. 267, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). The mere fact that community members are cognizant of the crimes and of the defendants' identities does not, by itself, render the trial constitutionally unfair. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 303, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2303, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Instead, we must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the trial for the conjunction of extensive and inflammatory publicity immediately prior to trial, evidence of the community's outrage at the revelation of the crimes, and clear indications of juror partiality on the record, before we can reverse the trial court's finding of jury impartiality for manifest error. See Yount, 104 S.Ct. at 2889-90; Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 728, 81 S.Ct. at 1645. Cf. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). 19 Our review of the circumstances surrounding the trial leads us to conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. Although the pre-trial publicity was extensive, and there was no cooling off period between the publicity and trial as in Yount, we find a lack of inflammatory, sensational journalism that would lead us to question the jury's impartiality. Moreover, the Inquirer articles only indirectly concerned appellants. Only one defendant, Martin, is mentioned, and then only in passing. The articles detail a structurally similar but apparently separate extortion scheme conducted in the Central Division by Inspector DeBenedetto. Nor do we discern an overpowering sense of outrage in the community or evidence of juror partiality in the record. Appellants fail to bring to our attention any portion of the voir dire that indicates that any juror had made up his mind with regard to the merits of the government's case. Further, we note that ten jurors were seated without challenge by appellants. As to these ten, whether or not exposed to the pre-trial publicity, failure to challenge generally waives defendants' objections on appeal. See Provenzano, 620 F.2d at 996 n. 15. Concerning the two jurors who were seated over defendants' challenges, our review of the record shows that the trial court's careful voir dire established that at most, the jurors were aware of the scandal, but could not recall more than the fact that there were some policemen indicted for racketeering. The court properly determined that these jurors had not made up their minds as to the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants and that they would be impartial. 20 This is the second time we have had the opportunity to review the voir dire proceedings in this case, and we reaffirm our approval of the trial court's conduct. In United States v. Martin, 746 F.2d 964, 973 (3d Cir.1984), we commended the trial court's patient and careful examination of potential jurors ... [as] an excellent example of the power of voir dire to screen out persons who may not be impartial. The record shows the district court's acute sensitivity to the problems generated by the public profile of this case. That the jurors were familiar with the broadest details of the scheme was inevitable from the publicity surrounding the trial; that the jurors ultimately impanelled provided defendants with a fair trial is due entirely to the skill of the trial judge in conducting a searching and effective voir dire. 21 Pecic argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sequester the jury during the trial and during its deliberations. The decision whether to sequester the jury lies wholly within the discretion of the district court. As the district court observed when it denied defendants' post-trial motions, sequestration is an extreme measure, 'one of the most burdensome tools of the many available to assure a fair trial.'  quoting United States v. Porcaro, 648 F.2d 753, 755 (1st Cir.1981). In light of the trial court's instructions to refrain from reading, viewing television, or listening to the radio reports about the case, the court's daily examination of the jurors to determine if they were following this instruction, and the circumstances and the length of the trial, we find no abuse. 22 Exclusion of Evidence Concerning DePeri's Attitude Towards Children 23 Alvaro testified to attending a meeting between Inspector DePeri and poker machine vendor Joseph Lamarra in which DePeri told LaMarra that if anybody ever squealed on him, he would kill his f-----g kids. In an attempt to rebut this testimony, DePeri tried to introduce testimony that he had suffered a severe trauma when a school bus killed his child more than ten years ago. According to DePeri, the effects of this trauma made it unlikely that DePeri would threaten the life of any child. This testimony would also show that children were very dear to DePeri and that he took a special interest in the children of the people under his command and that DePeri had organized charitable collections for children. DePeri argued that this evidence would undercut Alvaro's testimony by showing that it was inconsistent with DePeri's high regard for the welfare of children. The court declined to accept this argument, however, and excluded the evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 as irrelevant and prejudicial. 24 We believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. DePeri's state of mind regarding children in general does not make his statement to LaMarra more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Moreover, the evidence appears to be an effort to evoke the jury's sympathy toward DePeri by introducing an account of DePeri's misfortunes. We hold therefore that the court properly found DePeri's proffer of evidence irrelevant and prejudicial. 25 Introduction into Evidence of Officer Molloy's Testimony 26 Lawrence Molloy was a Philadelphia police officer formerly assigned to the Central Division. Molloy was indicted in 1983 and subsequently convicted on charges of accepting illegal protection payoffs. At appellants' trial, Molloy testified concerning the collection and distribution of protection payments from numbers writers and video poker machine vendors in the Central Division. In the course of his testimony, Molloy indicated that he presently resided at a halfway house in Camden, New Jersey, and had been convicted for extortion. Molloy also testified that he did not know any of the appellants. 27 DePeri and Martin argue that the court erred in admitting Molloy's testimony. They contend that Molloy's testimony was irrelevant because it did not concern the extortion scheme in the Northwest Division and that the court should have excluded the testimony as prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because of Molloy's conviction on charges similar to the charges brought against appellants. We will reverse the district court's decision to admit Molloy's testimony only if appellants demonstrate that the ruling was arbitrary or irrational. United States v. Friedland, 660 F.2d 919, 929 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 2268, 73 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1982). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the court's decision was neither arbitrary nor irrational. Molloy's testimony was probative of the defendants' alleged use of the Philadelphia Police Department as a vehicle to collect and distribute the protection payments. Molloy testified that he received payoffs from vendors who had poker machines all over the city, and, more importantly, collected payments for machines that were not located in the Central Division. This money was funneled directly to Inspector DeBenedetto of the Central Division. Alvaro later testified that he contacted DeBenedetto to receive payoffs collected by DeBenedetto's men from vendors with machines located in the Northwest Division. This evidence revealed that the defendants' extortion activities were not limited to the Northwest Division, and that the defendants used the services of other divisions to help collect protection money, as the indictment charged. Improper Prosecutorial Comments 28 DePeri, Pecic, and Murphy assert that the government prejudiced their trial by informing the jury that its witnesses had passed polygraph examinations. This statement allegedly occurred during the following exchange between the government and Captain Linso: 29 Q. Is it your testimony that [certain poker machine vendors] did not pay you or any representative of you for any poker machines? 30 A. That is exactly my testimony and they didn't take a lie detector test either like I wanted to do. 31 The Government: Your Honor, I would ask that that be striken. 32 Mr. Tinari: Objection. 33 The Court: Sustained. 34 The Government: It's also untrue. 35 Mr. Tinari: That is objected to. I move for a mistrial. 36 The Court: Denied. The jury will disregard Mr. Klein's comment and the jury will disregard this witness's answer to which I have sustained an objection and give no consideration to these matters in any way. Shall we continue? 37 According to appellants, the prosecutor's remark that Linso's statement was also untrue constituted impermissible vouching for the credibility of its witnesses, the poker machine vendors. While we agree that the government's statement was improper, we hold that even if the statement constituted error, the error is harmless and did not require the court to grant the mistrial motion. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 509, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980-81, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). Under United States v. DiPasquale, 740 F.2d 1282, 1296-97 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1226, 84 L.Ed.2d 364 (1985), we must examine the record as a whole to ascertain whether the error prejudiced defendant's trial, such that within the setting of the trial, the error was so insignificant and unimportant that it may be deemed harmless. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The record shows that this comment is ambiguous. The government did not state that its witnesses had taken polygraph exams, it stated only that Linso's statement was untrue, which could have also meant that Linso did not take a lie detector test. The record also shows that the government's remark was isolated, that the prejudice, if any, to the defendants was minimal, especially in light of the court's prompt corrective instruction, and that the evidence against appellants was strong. Variance Allegations 38 DePeri, Linso, Pecic, and Katz maintain that the indictment impermissibly varied from the proof at trial. Appellants contend that while the indictment charged a single conspiracy, the proof supported only a finding of ad hoc associations of various officers. Essentially, they argue that the government failed to show their association to each other within the RICO enterprise charged, the Philadelphia Police Department, in sufficient detail to permit their conviction. 39 The burden on the government under RICO was to show that the defendants knowingly agreed to participate in the RICO conspiracy. See United States v. Jannotti, 729 F.2d 213, 226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 243, 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984). In Jannotti, we observed that 40 'The mere fact that a defendant works for a legitimate enterprise and commits racketeering acts while on the business premises does not establish that the affairs of the enterprise have been conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity'.... Instead, the government must show that a person 'is enabled to commit the predicate offenses solely by virtue of his position in the enterprise; or ... the predicate offenses are related to the activities of that enterprise.' 41 Id. (citations deleted). The evidence at trial established that the defendants' positions in the Philadelphia Police Department enabled them to collect and distribute protection profits, contact and involve new clients in the racket, and enforce the extortion scheme. The evidence presented to the jury would have allowed it to conclude that the defendants knowingly agreed to participate in the 'enterprise' through a pattern of racketeering. United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 221 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849, 104 S.Ct. 157, 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983). 42 In reviewing the jury's finding that the defendants were involved in a single enterprise, we must determine if there is sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support its finding. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 750 F.2d 1183, 1189 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1397, 84 L.Ed.2d 785 (1985); United States v. Leon, 739 F.2d 885, 890-91 (3d Cir.1984); United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 999 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 889, 101 S.Ct. 267, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). A review of the record compels us to hold that the evidence sufficed to link these defendants to the conspiracy and establish RICO liability. In United States v. Maker, 751 F.2d 614, 625 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3479, 87 L.Ed.2d 614 (1985), we observed that a single scheme is demonstrated when the evidence shows a common goal, operations carried out in virtually identical manner, and an overlapping of defendants. All three factors are present in this case. The common goal was the extortion of poker machine vendors and numbers parlors; the method of extortion in all cases was similar--the machines would be seized and sold back to the operators for the same price, the protection money ranged between fifty and one hundred dollars per machine in all areas, the victims payed on the first or fifteenth of the month, there was a common code name (Whitey) that was passed on to the bagmen, the money was collected and passed up the ladder to the Inspectors (Central Division Inspector John DeBenedetto, Northwest Division Inspectors DePeri and Martin); and the defendants, although stationed in different divisions, came into contact with one another in the course of dividing the profits from and enforcing the protection scheme. 43 DePeri, Murphy, and Katz claim they could not have participated in a single conspiracy because they did not know the identities of all of the other participants nor were they aware of the overarching conspiracy. This knowledge is not essential to the finding of a RICO conspiracy. As we said in Riccobene, [i]t is well established that one conspirator need not know the identities of all his coconspirators, nor be aware of all the details of the conspiracy in order to be found to have agreed to participate in it. 709 F.2d at 225. The government proved that the defendants understood the essential nature of the plan and knowingly agreed to participate in the plan, which is sufficient for RICO liability. See id. Open Court Statement by a News Reporter 44 DePeri, Pecic, and Murphy argue that the statement by a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in the courtroom before the jury concerning the poor sound quality of tape recorded conversations played before the court prejudiced their trial by alerting the jury to the high profile of the case. While the court listened to Alvaro and Ricci discuss the latter's job prospects after his extortion indictment, the following exchange took place: 45 The Court: Can the sound be turned up at this point for the audience?Mr. Weiner: My name is Tim Weiner. I work for the Philadelphia inquirer. 46 Mr. Lazin: Is this something that is appropriate to be heard in front of the jury? I have an idea what he is going to say. 47 The Court: I think what he is going to say [sic], we will let the jury stay in the courtroom. 48 Mr. Weiner: For the purposes of the record, one of the two speakers, the one on the right, is in open pain, and the sound and signals emanating from the one on the left is unintelligible, utterly unintelligible, to the audience and members of the press and the public without the aid of the transcript. For the purposes of the record, we would respectfully ask after the playing of the tape is completed, that your Honor delay further playing of the tapes until counsel may be heard on this matter. We are here as the eyes and ears of the public on a matter of great public importance and we cannot function under these conditions. Thank you. 49 The court directed a technician to resolve on the problem and ruled that the press could read copies of the tape transcripts during lunch recesses. The court then excused the jury, and a number of other reporters registered complaints with the court, e.g., that they were not able to make copies of the transcripts or the tapes. The defendants moved for mistrial, again out of hearing of the jury, on the ground that the jury's verdict would be influenced by their knowledge of the trial's public interest. The court denied the motions. When the jury returned, the court gave a corrective instruction admonishing them to ignore to the reporter's remarks. 50 This third party communication with the jury would be considered objectionable and provide sufficient grounds to overturn the verdict if it can be shown that it violated the sixth amendment's guarantees, e.g., if the statement somehow calls the jury's impartiality into question, or deprives the defendant of his rights of confrontation and counsel. See Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140, 150-51 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 1119, 47 L.Ed.2d 323 (1976). 51 In this context, the reporter's statement neither biased the jury against the defendants nor did it provide the jury with novel information concerning the public's interest in the trial. Given the lack of prejudice and the court's prompt corrective instruction, we find no error. Agent Gamber's Reports 52 DePeri argues that the court erred by refusing to allow him to introduce into evidence reports completed by Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Gamber detailing his interviews with video poker machine vendors LaMarra and Cook. DePeri claims that these reports contained statements by LaMarra and Cook that would have impeached part of Alvaro's testimony and argues that the court should have admitted the interviews under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 53 We disagree. The applicable rule here is Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Although this rule generally permits the introduction of public records into evidence by either party in a civil proceeding, subdivision (B) prevents the introduction of law enforcement reports against defendants in criminal cases. See United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598, 604 (2d Cir.1976). Unlike subdivision (C) dealing with factual findings resulting from official, non-law enforcement investigations, subdivision (B) does not provide explicitly for the introduction of police reports into evidence against the government. In United States v. Smith, 521 F.2d 957 (D.C.Cir.1975), the court reasoned that subdivision (B) should be read in accordance with the obvious intent of Congress and in harmony with 803(8)(C) to authorize the admission of the reports of police officers and other law enforcement personnel at the request of the defendant in a criminal case. 521 F.2d at 968 n. 24. Even under this reading of subdivision (B), the court correctly denied DePeri's request. This is a classic hearsay within hearsay problem. While Rule 803(8)(B) would permit DePeri's introduction of the reports themselves, which would ordinarily be considered hearsay, LaMarra's and Cook's out-of-court statements contained in the records require a separate hearsay exception before they can be admitted. Because DePeri did not provide the court with an applicable hearsay exception to allow the introduction of LaMarra's and Cook's statements, we hold that the court did not err in refusing to admit Agent Gamber's reports.