Opinion ID: 450378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Presentation of Hearsay to the Grand Jury

Text: 24 Piedrahita argues that his indictment was defective and should be dismissed because the prosecutor presented only hearsay testimony to the grand jury. In United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132 (2d Cir.1972), we held that an indictment must be dismissed when the grand jury is misled into thinking it is getting eye-witness testimony from the agent whereas it is actually being given an account whose hearsay nature is concealed. Id. at 1136-37 (quoting United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1969)). Here, Piedrahita fails to show that the grand jury was misled into thinking that hearsay testimony was in fact that of an eyewitness. 25 At the commencement of each session, the Assistant United States Attorney informed the grand jury that some of the testimony presented would be hearsay. Moreover, the grand jury could not have thought the challenged testimony to be anything other than hearsay. The testimony at issue is that of one of the surveillance officers, George Cats. In his testimony, Detective Cats made clear that he had not observed all the events of which he spoke. When asked if he had maintained the surveillance that observed Piedrahita's actions, Cats replied: The other officer did, yes. In the same passage, the prosecutor refers to you and other [sic] establishing surveillance and speaks of Al entering the Sixty-eighth Street building. Considering these statements together with those of Detective Cats, we think the prosecutor could not possibly have misled the grand jury. We therefore reject this argument as meritless.