Opinion ID: 746430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: References to Air Safety

Text: 30 The government presented evidence at trial that the bearing seal scheme and the LPT case scheme adversely affected air safety. On appeal, Vitti and Gabriel challenge the air safety evidence on two grounds--that it was irrelevant and that it was unfairly prejudicial. We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 538 (2d Cir.1989). 31 Defendants' relevancy argument has no merit. Defendants were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 3 by making false statements to the FAA that certain airplane part repairs had been performed properly. Among the things the government was required to prove was that the false statements were material. See id.; United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 2313, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995). To prove materiality, the government offered evidence that the improper repairs adversely affected air safety. Evidence that air safety was adversely affected as a result of improper repairs is plainly relevant to proving the materiality of false statements that the repairs had been performed properly. Accordingly, we reject defendants' relevancy argument. 32 Defendants also contend that the district court admitted an excessive amount of air safety evidence at trial, and that the evidence unfairly played on the jurors' fear of flying. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. However, our review of the record indicates that defendants aggressively challenged the government's air safety evidence early and often. As the district court aptly stated when ruling on a similar argument: 33 I am concerned that the defense is trying to have it two ways, to be blunt about it ... [the defense] wants me to take steps to narrow the Government's proof on materiality ... on the grounds of ... prejudice.... 34 I've taken steps in that direction, but I then begin to wonder whether the truth is being obscured when the defense on the one hand raises many, many defenses about materiality and yet suggests that the Government should be somewhat hamstrung in its ability to establish materiality beyond a reasonable doubt. 35 In light of defendants' decision to challenge materiality aggressively, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the government leeway to introduce air safety evidence. 36 Finally, defendants argue that they should receive a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor stated during closing argument that no one in their right mind would put a loved one on an aircraft that was using the LPT case that CRT had repaired. While the district court found that the reference to loved ones was improper, the court concluded that no reasonable person could conclude that [the statement] had a material impact on this jury.We agree that the comment was improper. We have previously ruled that references to the jurors' personal safety are improper, see United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 946 (2d Cir.1993), and we conclude that the reference to the safety of loved ones that the prosecutor made here is no different. However, we reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct only if the misconduct deprived a defendant of a fair trial. Id. at 945. In evaluating a prosecutor's misconduct, we consider (1) the severity of the ... misconduct; (2) the curative measures taken; and (3) the likelihood of conviction absent any misconduct. Id. at 945-46. We also agree with the district court that the prosecutor's comment did not deprive defendants of a fair trial. The statement was an isolated incident in an otherwise proper two hour argument that came at the conclusion of an otherwise fair six-week trial. Moreover, the district court's curative measures were strong as the district court instructed the jury that considerations of air safety must not be a factor in your deliberation. Finally, the jury acquitted Vitti on all counts relating to the LPT case, indicating that the prosecutor's comments about the LPT case did not inflame the jury. See id. at 946 (jury's vote to acquit a defendant on one count indicated that jury was not influenced by improper comment). 37