Opinion ID: 797991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Marion recordings

Text: 15 Gotti contends the receipt of recordings of his conversations with his brother John at the Marion Federal Penitentiary (the Marion recordings) violated the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). 16 In the Marion recordings, John spoke of his hatred for Gravano, who had testified for the Government at John's trial. John spoke of his desire for revenge against Gravano. Also on the Marion recordings, Peter acknowledged knowing several co-conspirators and spoke of his son's involvement with a construction union. The defense could not examine John about the Marion recordings at trial because in the meantime John had died. 17 In Crawford, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of hearsay statements of a testimonial nature unless the declarant is available for cross-examination. We need not address whether John's statements in the Marion recordings were testimonial, within the meaning of Crawford, because there is no Confrontation Clause violation for statements admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354; cf. United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir.2006) (It has long been the rule that `[s]o long as . . . statements are not presented for the truth of the matter asserted, but only to establish a context . . ., the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not transgressed.' Nothing in Crawford v. Washington is to the contrary. (citation omitted and alterations in original)). 18 The district court instructed the jury that the statements made by John Gotti in the Marion recordings were not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted but rather to show the effect of John's statements on Peter. We find no error: