Opinion ID: 461592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Initially Raised by Linso

Text: 61 Sufficiency of the Evidence to Convict Linso of 62 Participation and Conspiring to Participate in RICO Enterprise 63 Linso argues that while the testimony sufficed to show that he received protection payments, he lacked knowledge about the essential nature of the conspiracy, and the government failed to show his agreement to participate in the conduct and affairs of the enterprise or his commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Linso was the captain of the Fifth District under Inspector DePeri. Alvaro testified that after DePeri originally chastised Linso for fooling around with the machines, DePeri reconsidered his position and told Linso that he could do what he wanted with the machines. Ricci testified that he delivered Linso's money directly to him at the Fifth District headquarters maybe four or five times and on two occasions had delivered money to Linso after Linso had been transferred from the Northwest Division. Ricci also testified that he and Linso had discussed the names of vendors who could hurt him if they testified against him before the grand jury. Donald DeVore, a video poker machine vendor, testified that he met with Linso at the Fifth District headquarters and discussed the number of machines he had in Linso's district, and the size and manner of protection payments for those machines. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, we believe that the jury could have reasonably found that Linso understood the nature of the larger enterprise he was involved in, agreed to participate in that enterprise, and did indeed participate. 64 The Government's use of a Chart During its Opening Statement 65 Linso maintains that the use of a chart by the government in its opening statement deprived him of his right to a fair trial. He suggests that the chart linked him to the conspiracy before evidence concerning the conspiracy had been introduced. We disagree. 66 The opening statement is not evidence in itself, but serves to give the jury the broad outlines of the case to enable the jury to comprehend it. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Turner, 409 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir.1969). As long as the opening statement avoids references to matters that cannot be proved or would be inadmissible, there can be no error, much less prejudicial error. See Maxworthy v. Horn Electric Service, Inc., 452 F.2d 1141, 1143-44 (4th Cir.1972). To begin, we take notice that such charts are often employed in complex conspiracy cases to provide the jury with an outline of what the government will attempt to prove. The chart complained of in the instant case contained the names of the participants in the protection scheme, including the defendants, the dates they served in the Philadelphia Police Department, and the divisions in which they served. After considering the arguments of the government and the defendants, the court permitted the use of the chart as a demonstrative aid to help the jury remember the names and positions of the defendants. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to use a visual aid in its opening statement. The use of a chart to preview the government's case certainly did not poison the jury's mind against the defendants, nor did it allude to items of highly questionable evidence. Turner, 409 F.2d at 103. 67 Admission of Recorded Conversations Against Linso 68 Linso suggests that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a recording of a telephone call in which Linso and Alvaro discussed the upcoming indictments. Linso argues that the tape should have been excluded on grounds of relevance and prejudice. We disagree. Linso displayed a cavalier attitude during the call, an attitude from which the jury could reasonably infer that Linso had failed to protest his guilt because he was culpable. Given Linso's counsel's insistence at trial that the jury hear the entire conversation, the sufficiency of the evidence apart from this tape to convict Linso, and the trial court's instructions to the jury, after they had listened to the tapes, that references to indictments were not evidence, we find no abuse. 69 Admission of Goldsworthy's Statement Against Linso 70 Linso asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a statement by John Goldsworthy, a poker machine vendor, that he understood that the money he paid to Ricci would be going to whoever was in that district. We disagree. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. We believe that Goldsworthy's statement was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the statement, i.e., that the protection money was actually going to all the Fifth District's officers. A more reasonable interpretation is that Goldsworthy testified as to his belief that he was paying protection money to the district rather than just to Ricci. Furthermore, we note that Linso's counsel neglected to pursue his objection and explore the basis for Goldsworthy's understanding on cross-examination. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse.