Opinion ID: 2962675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Paul A.

Text: The jury convicted Paul A. for his part in overseeing and directing the conspiracy to kill Silva. He contends that the - 13 - Noe reports are material because they contradict the government's theory of the case that the DeCologero crew killed Silva. Instead, the reports support Paul A.'s theory that Portalla stored the guns at Silva's house and his crew (including McConnell and Nogueira) murdered Silva. Paul A. further argues that, if he had been aware of the reports before trial, he would have called Noe to testify at trial, and her testimony would have corroborated his version of Silva's murder. The government counters that the Noe reports themselves are inadmissible hearsay and appellants have failed to demonstrate how their disclosure would have led to material admissible evidence. Therefore, the government argues, and the district court found, that given the overwhelming weight of the trial evidence, the FBI reports do not raise a reasonable probability of a different outcome. DeCologero II, 2013 WL 3728409, at . At trial, multiple witnesses testified that Paul A. led the DeCologero crew, that he stored guns at Silva's apartment, that he instructed his crew members to kill Silva because she could not be trusted if interrogated by the police, and that his crew members DiCenso, Capozzi, and Meuse killed Silva and disposed of her body. The witnesses who implicated Paul A. in Silva's murder included DiCenso, John P. (Paul A.'s brother), and Regan. Furthermore, as the district court stated, the witnesses' - 14 - testimony was consistent and corroborated by the physical evidence discovered by police. Id. Paul A. counters that much of the witness testimony cannot be trusted because it was solicited from former members of the DeCologero crew, many of whom were testifying pursuant to cooperation agreements with the government. Furthermore, Paul A. argues that none of the physical evidence at trial directly implicated him in the murder. The physical evidence consisted of bloody bags containing Silva's DNA in a dumpster in Danvers, a security video and Home Depot receipt showing that Capozzi and Meuse had purchased items to assist in disposing of Silva's body, and Meuse's fingerprint on an item in the Danvers dumpster. While none of this evidence directly connects Paul A. to the crime, it does provide support for DiCenso's testimony that Meuse had killed Silva and that DiCenso and Capozzi had helped Meuse dispose of her body. Notably, no physical evidence supports the theory of the crime found in the Noe reports that Portalla, McConnell, and Nogueira were responsible for Silva's murder. Paul A. responds that even if DiCenso and Meuse were involved in Silva's murder, evidence supports his theory that they were actually members of Portalla's crew and were ordered by Portalla, not Paul A., to kill Silva. Regarding DiCenso, in a discovery letter before trial, the government disclosed to appellants' counsel that DiCenso had told a confidential informant - 15 - that he worked for Portalla and would collect money and distribute cocaine and heroin for him. Regarding Meuse, his cell phone records demonstrated that Meuse had made multiple phone calls to Portalla and his girlfriend around the time of Silva's murder in November 1996. According to Paul A., [t]hese phone calls provided a strong connection between Portalla and Meuse right around the time of Silva's murder. Paul A. Br. at 41-42. While DiCenso denied at trial that he had worked for Portalla, Paul A. further argues that DiCenso's testimony should not be trusted. He notes that we have previously acknowledged the strong incentive DiCenso had to testify in support of the government's theory of the case. United States v. Capozzi, 486 F.3d 711, 724 (1st Cir. 2007). In Capozzi's direct appeal, we stated: DiCenso had pled guilty to a crime punishable by life imprisonment, and . . . DiCenso's cooperation allowed him to be sentenced to a much lower sentence. DiCenso was shown [at trial] to have had a powerful motive -- avoidance of a life sentence and possibly of prison altogether -- to cooperate with the government and to testify falsely if necessary. Id. Despite DiCenso's incentive to lie, his testimony that Paul A., and not Portalla, ordered Silva's killing was corroborated by a considerable amount of more reliable evidence. For example, numerous witnesses identified both DiCenso and Meuse as members of - 16 - the DeCologero crew, and both men were implicated in a variety of illegal activities tied to Paul A.'s criminal enterprise, including the robberies of drug dealers Albert Sapochetti, Michael Slim Stevens, and Jeff North. Although Paul A. presents a modicum of evidence that DiCenso and Meuse might have worked for Portalla, he fails to account for Capozzi, who, according to the physical evidence, also had a direct role in Silva's killing and was identified as a member of the DeCologero crew. Furthermore, a law enforcement officer involved in the investigation into Silva's death expressly disavowed any link between Portalla and the killing, stating that, besides the one occasion where Portalla was seen with Paul A. at Silva's apartment, he really didn't have any connection between Portalla and Miss Silva. In addition to DiCenso, Regan and John P. also implicated Paul A. in Silva's murder. Regan testified that, after law enforcement had discovered the weapons at Silva's apartment, Paul A. stated in a meeting with DeCologero crew members that [w]e got to get the girl away from the law. John P. testified that, around the same time, Paul A. told him that he was debating whether to get rid of [Silva] because the police were at her apartment. Moreover, after Silva was murdered, Paul A. told Regan that Meuse and DiCenso had killed the girl and chopped her up. Paul A. told John P. that she had to go. Kevin Meuse knew what time it was. He did what he had to do. - 17 - In contrast to the physical evidence tying DiCenso, Meuse, and Capozzi to Silva's murder and multiple witnesses testifying that Paul A. ordered the killing, the evidence supporting Paul A.'s alternative explanation for Silva's death found in the Noe reports consists of little more than hearsay and rumors. As the district court stated, the Noe reports represent a hearsay account by a single witness. DeCologero II, 2013 WL 3728409, at . In addition to DiCenso's alleged hearsay statement to a confidential informant that he worked for Portalla and Meuse's multiple calls to Portalla, the total sum of evidence supporting the theory that Portalla ordered Silva killed includes some early news reports indicating that Portalla and his crew were suspects in the Silva murder, id., testimony that Portalla had been seen at Silva's apartment, and another hearsay report that a confidential informant told an inspector with the Stoneham Police Department that s/he heard that the girl from Medford that is missing was holding guns for 'Portella.' Because the Noe reports themselves are hearsay, they would not have been admissible at trial for the truth of the matters asserted, and by definition [are] not material, because [they] never would have reached the jury and therefore could not have affected the trial outcome. United States v. Ranney, 719 F.2d 1183, 1190 (1st Cir. 1983). Thus, Paul A. has the burden of demonstrating how the disclosure of the reports would have led to - 18 - admissible material exculpatory evidence. Paul A. argues that the reports would have prompted him to call Noe to testify at trial, and her testimony would have verified the allegations made in the Noe reports. However, Paul A. has not submitted any evidence to support this argument. For example, he has not provided an affidavit from Noe or any other evidence that Noe would have been available at trial and, furthermore, that she would have testified in accordance with the reports. See DeCologero II, 2013 WL 3728409, at  (noting that Paul A. has made no showing that Noe would have testified in accordance with [the Noe] reports if she had appeared at trial.). In fact, he makes no representation that, after the disclosure of the Noe reports, he made any attempt to contact or locate Noe, nor does he contend that Noe would have refused to cooperate with him if he indeed had contacted her. It is also unclear exactly what Noe would have been able to say if she had been called to testify at trial as much of the Noe reports consists of her recounting McConnell's incriminating statements, which would be hearsay. Paul A. argues that [a] defendant has the right to present evidence of a third party culprit, including calling witnesses that would testify to outof-court admissions of the third party. Paul A. Br. at 39. On the one hand, we agree that Noe would have been able to testify to relevant information within her personal knowledge that would challenge the government's theory that the DeCologero - 19 - crew killed Silva, such as seeing McConnell come home with his clothes and arms covered with blood in mid-November 1996, observing McConnell and Portalla talking outside of her house that same day, and visiting Silva's apartment with McConnell and Portalla at least ten times. See, e.g., Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 328 (2006) (recognizing a defendant's right to introduce evidence of third-party guilt). On the other hand, Paul A. has failed to demonstrate how Noe could have testified to McConnell's statements themselves.2 While McConnell's statements would likely qualify as statements against penal interest under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)(B), the declarant must be unavailable as a witness for that hearsay exception to apply. Fed. R. Evid. 804(a). Paul A. has made no showing that McConnell would have been unavailable at trial. In fact, none of the appellants argue that they would have called McConnell as a witness at trial, or that, if he had testified and denied killing Silva, they would have impeached 2 Paul A.'s reliance on Mendez v. Artuz, 303 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2002), is misplaced. In Mendez, the Second Circuit never addressed the admissibility of hearsay statements of a third-party culprit. The court affirmed the district court's decision granting habeas on Brady grounds because the government had suppressed evidence of a third-party culprit. The court did not address the admissibility of that evidence but simply stated that the suppressed information would have allowed [the defendant] to challenge the state's motive theory . . . either through cross-examination or the presentation of contradictory testimony [which] . . . would have allowed the defendant to create reasonable doubt that he was the shooter. Id. at 414. - 20 - McConnell by introducing his statements in the Noe reports as prior inconsistent statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 613.3 Paul A. asks us to vacate his conviction based solely on the disclosure of two hearsay reports. Given the strength of the trial evidence against him, the inadmissibility of the Noe reports themselves, the failure to demonstrate that the reports would have led to the discovery of admissible exculpatory evidence, and according [s]ome deference to the district court's factintensive analysis, Conley, 415 F.3d at 188 n.3, Paul A. has not establish[ed] a reasonable probability of a different result at trial. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 291 (1999).