Opinion ID: 563774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plea Colloquy and Criminal Conviction.

Text: 19 During the trial, the court accepted in evidence, over objection, the plea colloquy and criminal conviction of one Robert F. Mongillo for certain acts of mail and wire fraud. On appeal, Mongillo argues that the court erred in admitting the evidence because there was no sufficient foundation linking him to the Robert F. Mongillo who was involved in the criminal prosecution. The argument beggars credulity. 20 Conceptually, this challenge is governed by Fed.R.Evid. 104(b). 3 It is beyond dispute that [t]rial judges have wide discretion in deciding whether an adequate foundation has been laid for the admission of evidence. Real v. Hogan, 828 F.2d 58, 64 (1st Cir.1987). The Supreme Court has clearly articulated the process by which a trial court should examine the soundness of an evidentiary foundation: 21 In determining whether the [plaintiff] has introduced sufficient evidence to meet Rule 104(b), the trial court neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the [plaintiff] has proved the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact ... by a preponderance of the evidence. 22 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); see also Onujiogu v. United States, 817 F.2d 3, 5 (1st Cir.1987). 23 In this case, a more than sufficient foundation was set in place. Prior to reading the plea colloquy into evidence, the plaintiffs presented portions of Mongillo's deposition. These extracts established that the Robert F. Mongillo sued herein was born on April 16, 1936; graduated from Boston College in 1958; and participated in a transaction involving Faneuil and the Veranda Beach resort circa 1983-1984. The identically named criminal defendant admitted in the plea colloquy to being 49 years old in January 1986, a 1958 graduate of Boston College, and a participant in a deal involving Faneuil and Veranda Beach during the 1983-1984 time frame. Given such strong identifying evidence, the contention that there was an insufficient foundation connecting one Mongillo to the other can only be described as an exercise in casuistry. The law is not so struthious as to compel a factfinder to ignore that which is perfectly obvious. See United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009, 108 S.Ct. 1738, 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). 24 Mongillo also urges that the evidence's probative value was overwhelmed by its unduly prejudicial effect. See Fed.R.Evid. 403 (Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....). He asserts that the plaintiffs adduced enough evidence independent of his criminal conviction to show that he had committed fraud, thus rendering the introduction of his criminal conviction gratuitously excessive. We are unimpressed. While it is true that the plaintiffs offered other evidence indicating that Mongillo engaged in fraudulent acts, we do not find the admission of the conviction to be so unfairly cumulative as to require reversal. Rather, this evidence served to confirm what the other evidence merely suggested: that Mongillo in fact orchestrated the very scheme for which the plaintiffs were seeking money damages. 25 In any event, trials were never meant to be antiseptic affairs; it is only unfair prejudice, not prejudice per se, against which Rule 403 guards. See Onujiogu, 817 F.2d at 6. And the trial court's construction of the probative value/unfair prejudice balance, hammered out during the rough and tumble of the trial itself, is subject to substantial deference on appeal. See United States v. Hadfield, 918 F.2d 987, 994 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2062, 114 L.Ed.2d 466 (1991); see also Freeman v. Package Machinery Co., 865 F.2d 1331, 1340 (1st Cir.1988) (a trial court's application of Evidence Rule 403 should be disturbed only in extraordinarily compelling circumstances). There was no unfair prejudice or misuse of the trier's discretion in this instance. 26