Opinion ID: 3014476
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., the three counts of interstate travel in

Text: rights. The monitoring devices were aid of racketeering and the money installed in the suite’s living room at a laundering conspiracy count. 3 Our time when Lee had no expectation of “[r]eview of the legal standard enunciated privacy in the premises. There is no in a jury instruction is plenary,” United evidence that conversations were States v. Yeaman, 194 F.3d 442, 452 (3d monitored when Beavers was absent from Cir. 1999), “but review of the wording of the room, and Beavers was plainly there at the instruction, i.e., the expression, is for the time of the incriminating meetings abuse of discretion.” Id. “This Court shown on the tapes that were introduced at reviews jury instructions to determine Lee’s trial. We are satisfied that the tapes whether, ‘taken as a whole, they properly do not depict anything material that apprized the jury of the issues and the Beavers himself was not in a position to hear or see while in the room. Finally, we reject Lee ’s sug gestio n that t he 3 government was required, before resorting The Travel Act counts charged that to video surveillance, to demonstrate that he traveled in interstate commerce with the less intrusive investigative techniques intent to promote, manage, establish, carry were unlikely to succeed. Although this on and facilitate the promotion, requirement applies to m onitorin g management, establishment and carrying governed by the federal wiretapping on of commercial bribery in violation of statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c), that statute the New Jersey bribery statute. The does not apply to electronic surveillance relevant part of the money laundering conducted with the prior consent of a party conspiracy count charged that Lee and the to the communication. Similarly, judicial other alleged conspirators conspired to d e c i s io n s c o nside ring a s imil a r commit the offense of engaging in requirement in cases involving silent video financial transactions involving proceeds surveillance conducted without a derived from violations of the New Jersey participant’s consent, see United States v. commercial bribery statute while knowing Williams, 124 F.3d 411, 416 & n.5 (3d that these proceeds were derived from Cir. 1997), are inapplicable in this context. such violations and that the financial We therefore reject Lee’s argument that transactions were designed at least in part the tapes should have been suppressed. to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of