Opinion ID: 564323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The scope of the error

Text: 74 The error in excluding the grand jury testimony would be reversible error, however, only if the evidence is material; that is, if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been [admitted], the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.); see also United States v. Underwood, 932 F.2d 1049, 1052 (2d Cir.1991). After reviewing the grand jury minutes, which were transmitted to us under seal, our confidence in the outcome is sufficiently undermined to require reversal of the convictions based on the Construction Case. 75 Pasquale Bruno and Frederick DeMatteis were both principal players in Cedar Park, one of the largest contractors in the metropolitan New York City concrete industry. Arguably, without their participation there could be no club of concrete contractors. Very generally stated, their grand jury testimony denied any awareness of, let alone participation in, such a club. If this testimony had been believed, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have concluded either that no such club existed, or at the very least that there was reasonable doubt as to its existence. Without the club, the Construction Case simply dissolves. Indeed, the central importance of the club's existence is probably why the government felt obligated to identify Bruno and DeMatteis as sources of exculpatory testimony under Brady v. Maryland. Excluding their grand jury testimony therefore requires, at the very least, reversal of the Construction Case convictions. 76 But we cannot stop there. As discussed at the beginning of this opinion, the Construction Case formed the core of the RICO charges--we analogized the remaining counts and predicate acts to barnacles on the ship that was the Construction Case. Without a ship, however, barnacles have nothing to cling to. Because such a huge portion of this case must be reversed on this single evidentiary error, and because the spillover taint undermines the convictions on the lesser counts as well, we reverse the convictions of all eight appealing defendants in toto. 77 The Food Case--the largest portion of the indictment aside from the Construction Case--was not directly affected by the exclusion of the grand jury testimony. However, given that the Food Case involved only Salerno (and on one count, Ianniello, whose convictions we would reverse on other grounds set forth below), we would be less than honest if we said that there was not a reasonable probability that the erroneously-achieved Construction Case verdicts had tainted these verdicts as well. The likelihood of prejudicial taint, from the numerous erroneous verdicts to the remaining few, is simply too great for us to ignore. The dangers of transference of guilt from one to another across the line separating conspiracies, subconsciously or otherwise, are so great that no one really can say prejudice to substantial right has not taken place. Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 774, 66 S.Ct. at 1252.