Opinion ID: 151405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: caracappa

Text: On this appeal, Caracappa contends principally that the trial court erred in allowing Burstein to testify to Kaplan's 1994 statement that Kaplan had been the intermediary between Casso and Caracappa/Eppolito; that statements by the government in summation improperly bolstered Burstein's testimony; and that the government in summation improperly introduced consideration of religion. Caracappa also contends that the government's cross-examination of one of his witnesses was improper, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on the narcotics counts, and that his sentence on those counts is unreasonable. We find no basis for reversal.
After Kaplan had testified and described relaying information received from Caracappa and Eppolito to Casso and relaying to them instructions and payments from Casso, and after defendants had cross-examined Kaplan at length, challenging the veracity of that testimony, the government was allowed to call Burstein as a witness to testify that Kaplan told him in 1994 that Kaplan had been the conduit between Caracappa/Eppolito and Casso. Caracappa contends principally that the Burstein testimony was inadmissible hearsay and that, in any event, it should have been excluded because defendants had not received advance notice of the 1994 statement by Kaplan and thus could not cross-examine Kaplan with respect to that statement. These contentions have no merit. The Federal Rules of Evidence specify the circumstances in which a prior statement by a witness is to be considered nonhearsay. Rule 801(d) provides, in pertinent part, that [a] statement is not hearsay if . . . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . . consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive . . . . Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) (emphases added). In addition to these stated preconditions, there is imbedded in the Rule a temporal limitation that permits the introduction of a declarant's consistent out-ofcourt statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive only when those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 159, 167, 115 S.Ct. 696, 130 L.Ed.2d 574 (1995); see, e.g., United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 167 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Forrester, 60 F.3d 52, 64 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. Quinto, 582 F.2d 224, 232-33 (2d Cir.1978). To come within Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the prior consistent statement need not be proffered through the testimony of the declarant but may be proffered through any witness who has firsthand knowledge of the statement. See, e.g., United States v. McGrath, 558 F.2d 1102, 1107 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1064, 98 S.Ct. 1239, 55 L.Ed.2d 765 (1978); 30B M. Graham, Federal Practice & Procedure § 7012, at 162 (Interim ed. 2006) (Graham). Further, where the declarant has already testified and the prior consistent statement is proffered through the testimony of another witness, the Rule's subject to cross-examination requirement is satisfied if the opposing party is not denied the opportunity to recall the declarant to the stand for cross-examination concerning the statement. See, e.g., United States v. Piva, 870 F.2d 753, 758 (1st Cir.1989); Graham § 7012, at 162-63. We review the district court's decision to admit a statement into evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204, 229 (2d Cir.2010), petition for cert. filed, No. 10-5153 (U.S. June 29, 2010); United States v. McGrath, 558 F.2d at 1107. We see no abuse of discretion here. At trial, much of the cross-examination conducted by defendants was directed toward their statute-of-limitations defense, which asserted that after Caracappa and Eppolito retired from NYPD and moved to Las Vegas, their RICO conspiracy with Kaplan ended, and that the present prosecution for their activities in New York was untimely. But defendants also aggressively challenged the truth of Kaplan's testimony as to the criminal activities of Caracappa and Eppolito while they were NYPD detectives, questioning him at length about his cooperation agreement with the government and his anticipated gain from testifying against Caracappa and Eppolito, and repeatedly asking whether his testimony wasn't being given in the hope that the government would appreciate his assistance and would move to reduce his sentence. The district court found that defendants ha[d] insinuated, directly and indirectly during the opening and during the cross-examination that [Kaplan's] motive to lie arose from his desire to be released from prison (Tr. 1218), and it construed that line of questioning as a charge that Kaplan's testimony was being given for an improper motive ( see id. at 1213-16). Although defendants contended that the temporal aspect of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) was not satisfied, arguing that Kaplan had a motive to fabricate from the moment he learned that Casso had been arrested, the district court rejected that contention. Pointing out that Kaplan was not in prison in 1994 when Casso attempted to cooperate ( id. at 1218), the court stated that [f]or [defendants'] theory to hold, Kaplan must have believed in 1994 that he [Kaplan] would eventually cooperate with the government, hoping that his testimony against the defendants would be called into question and knowing that if he told Mr. Burstein of his involvement, his account would have increased merit. That sequence of events, which is farfetched on it[]s face, is undercut by what actually happened in 1994 when Casso cooperated. Far from running to the government to cooperate, Kaplan went on the lam for approximately two years, returning only after he learned that Casso could not be used as a government witness ( id. at 1217-18). The court ruled that the preconditions of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) were satisfied and that Burstein would be allowed to testify to Kaplan's 1994 statement. ( See id. at 1216-17; see also id. at 1208, 1218 (not allowing Burstein to testify to a 1996 statement Kaplan made to him after being arrested).) In response to defendants' complaint that, had they known of the 1994 statement in advance they could have cross-examined Kaplan on that statement, the court stated, You can recall him if you like. ( Id. at 1213.) Having reviewed the record, we see no error in the district court's findings that defendants had expressly or impliedly suggested that Kaplan's testimony was fabricated because of his desire to get out of prison. Nor do we see any error in the court's finding that Kaplan's 1994 statement to Burstein, made while Kaplan was on the lam and some two years before he was arrested, was made before Kaplan had a motive to fabricate. The record also amply shows that defendants could have cross-examined Kaplan on that statement. First, the court expressly stated that it would allow them to recall Kaplan as a witness. Second, the record shows that the 3500 material produced to defendants prior to Kaplan's cross-examination, see 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Fed.R.Crim.P. 26.2, included an investigative report stating that Burstein, Kaplan's attorney, told Kaplan in March 1994 that Casso had become a government witness, and that thereafter, after a newspaper article appeared naming EPPOLITO and CARACAPPA as the two hit men in the Ed die LINO homicide, KAPLAN told his attorney, in sum and substance that he had been the intermediary between EPPOLITO, CARACAPPA and CASSO (Government Exhibit 3500-BK-21 at 108-09). Thus, defendants had in fact been informed of Kaplan's 1994 statement prior to trial and could have cross-examined Kaplan on it before Burstein testified. Finally, although Caracappa also contends that the government in summation improperly used Burstein's testimony to bolster that of Kaplan, rather than using it solely to counter the suggestion that Kaplan's testimony was motivated by an improper purpose, we see no misuse by the government. Prior consistent statements that are admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) are substantive evidence. The prior statement is consistent with the testimony given on the stand, and, if the opposite party wishes to open the door for its admission in evidence, no sound reason is apparent why it should not be received generally. Fed.R.Evid. 801 Advisory Committee Note (1972); see, e.g., United States v. Brennan, 798 F.2d 581, 587 (2d Cir.1986) (Statements admitted under Rule 801(d) are not hearsay and therefore are admissible as substantive evidence.).
In the government's rebuttal summation, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) made statements about Kaplan's 1994 statement to Burstein, to which Caracappa takes exception on appeal. The AUSA stated, inter alia, I submit to you that based on the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of what Mr. Kaplan told him, you can completely trust everything [Burstein] said 100 percent, 100 percent (Tr. 3227), and Burstein told you the truth. He is an officer of the court ( id. at 3230). Caracappa contends that the government thereby improperly vouched for Burstein's veracity. In addition, the AUSA pointed out that all major religions such as Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism have rites of penitence; he analogized the attorney-client privilege to the priest-penitent privilege and argued that it would make no greater sense for Kaplan to have told Burstein, his attorney, falsely, that he had committed a crime than it would for persons practicing Catholicism, seeking forgiveness through the intermediary between themselves and their God, to admit[ ] something they didn't do. ( Id. ) Caracappa seeks a new trial on the ground that this constituted vouching for Burstein's credibility by using Burstein's testimony to bolster Kaplan's credibility through an appeal to religious faith. (Caracappa brief on appeal at 39 (emphasis omitted).) A defendant bears a substantial burden in arguing for reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct in the summation. See, e.g., United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11-12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); United States v. Millar, 79 F.3d 338, 343 (2d Cir.1996). In determining whether an inappropriate remark amounts to prejudicial error, we look to the severity of the misconduct, the measures adopted to cure the misconduct, and the certainty of conviction absent the misconduct. United States v. Spinelli, 551 F.3d 159, 170 (2d Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 230, 175 L.Ed.2d 243 (2009). Flaws in the government's summation will require a new trial only in the rare case in which improper statements viewed against the entire argument to the jurycan be said to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial. See United States v. Forlorma, 94 F.3d 91, 93-94 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Millar, 79 F.3d at 343; United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130, 142 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 847, 113 S.Ct. 139, 121 L.Ed.2d 92 (1992). Further, in the absence of an objection at trial, a claim of improper vouching is reviewable only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 587 F.3d 573, 583 (2d Cir.2009); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Under the standard set by United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), for applying Rule 52(b), before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) `error,' (2) that is `plain,' and (3) that `affect[s] substantial rights.' Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770). If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error `seriously affect [s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (which was quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. at 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038 (other internal quotation marks omitted))). In the present case, although Caracappa's counsel and Eppolito's counsel, respectively, objected to other aspects of the government's rebuttal summation, neither of them objected to the statements described above or sought any cautionary instruction to the jury, and we cannot see that any of these statements warrants a new trial. The AUSA's statement that the jury could trust Burstein 100 percent based on the circumstances of the case and based on the circumstances of what Mr. Kaplan told him does not constitute vouching; it is merely an argument that the evidence indicates that Burstein's testimony was completely truthful and accurate. Nor can we agree with Caracappa's contention that the analogy drawn between the attorney-client privilege and the priest-penitent privilege was in any sense an appeal to religion; rather, it was plainly an argument that, in seeking aid from an advisor, it makes no sense to claim guilt falsely. The statement that Burstein should be believed because he is an officer of the court may have been improper either as a suggestion that Burstein should be viewed as something other than a witness for the prosecution or as a suggestion that attorneys always tell the truth; but that isolated statement, even if improper, clearly did not affect defendants' substantial rights. Accordingly, the plain-error test has not been met.
Caracappa also contends that the government's cross-examination of one of his witnesses was improper, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on the narcotics counts, and that his sentence on those counts is unreasonable. These contentions do not warrant extended discussion.
Caracappa called as a defense witness his former NYPD partner Detective Leslie Shanahan to testify to their official duties stretching into the day Lino was shot and killed, apparently to permit the jury to infer that Caracappa, who had gone off duty at approximately 11:30 that morning in Manhattan, could not have been one of the men who shot and killed Lino in Brooklyn at approximately 7:00 that evening. On cross-examination, the government asked Shanahan numerous questions as to police procedures, his knowledge of Caracappa's personal life, and various driving times and distances. Caracappa complains that no effort was made to confine the examination to the form appropriate for a direct examination. (Caracappa brief on appeal at 30.) While the cross-examination of Shanahan was somewhat more far-ranging than the direct examination, the trial court is `accorded broad discretion in controlling the scope and extent of cross-examination.' United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 734 (2d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Fabian, 312 F.3d 550, 558 (2d Cir.2002)), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 908, 125 S.Ct. 225, 160 L.Ed.2d 185 (2004). Although [c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness, Fed.R.Evid. 611(b), [t]he court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination, id. It is, of course, unrealistic to expect that direct examination and cross-examination will be perfectly congruent .... The latter need only be reasonably related to the former, and matching the two requires the district court to make a series of judgment calls. Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d 45, 53 (1st Cir.2003). Most of the questioning on cross-examination was reasonably related to the questions put to Shanahan on direct, and we cannot conclude that the leeway granted by the trial court overall was an abuse of discretion.
Caracappa contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty of distributing and conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. A defendant who makes such a challenge bears a heavy burden, since he must show that no rational trier of fact could have found all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76, 105 (2d Cir.2002); see, e.g., United States v. Payne, 591 F.3d 46, 60 (2d Cir.), petition for cert. filed, No. 09-10015 (U.S. April 1, 2010), and since, in determining whether he has made that showing, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all permissible inferences in the government's favor and deferring to the jury's assessments of the witnesses' credibility, see, e.g., United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 241 (2d Cir.2010); United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220, 225 (2d Cir.2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1220, 128 S.Ct. 1320, 170 L.Ed.2d 133 (2008). The government's evidence on the narcotics counts was presented principally through the testimony of Corso and was described in Eppolito II as follows: Corso testified that at a dinner with Eppolito and Caracappa in mid-February 2005, he told them he was expecting a visit from four Hollywood clients, each of whom was interested in investing $75,000 in Eppolito's film project, and that his clients wanted to purchase `designer drugs' (Tr. 1587), specifically ecstasy and crystal methamphetamine. Corso testified that Eppolito responded that Tony, his son, could handle it; both Eppolito and Caracappa said that Guido Bravatti, a young associate of Caracappa's, could handle it. Later that night, Eppolito called Corso to give him Bravatti's telephone number. On the following evening, Corso had dinner with Tony and Bravatti. Corso told them that his clients wanted an ounce of crystal methamphetamine and six to eight ecstasy pills; Bravatti said there would be no problem. Tony and Bravatti indicated that they wanted to do all they could to facilitate investments by Corso's clients in Eppolito's film project. The next day, Tony and Bravatti made a partial delivery at Corso's office, saying that they had had some difficulty in obtaining what Corso requested. They handed him an envelope containing somewhat less than the requested ounce of crystal methamphetamine, and Corso paid them proportionately. The parties stipulated at trial that that envelope had contained 25.4 grams of 64-percent-pure methamphetamine. 543 F.3d at 38-39 (emphases added). This evidence was ample to permit the jury to find Caracappa guilty of conspiring to distribute, and distributing, a controlled substance.
For Caracappa's convictions of conspiring to distribute and distributing narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), respectively, the district court sentenced Caracappa to, inter alia, consecutive prison terms of 40 years on each count, the maximum authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Caracappa contends that the total, 80 years' imprisonment, is excessive and represents cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Although these sentences are severe, on the record in the present case we find no basis for disturbing them. In the aftermath of United States v. Booker, we review sentences for reasonableness, ... `a deferential standard limited to identifying abuse of discretion regardless of whether a challenged sentence is inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.' United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 65 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir.2008) (other internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2128, 176 L.Ed.2d 757 (2010). Further, [t]he Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime, and in a noncapital case, it is `exceedingly rare' to uphold a claim that a sentence within the statutory limits is disproportionately severe. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 163 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (other internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis ours)); see also United States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655, 686 (7th Cir.2006) (In non-capital felony convictions, a particular sentence that falls within legislatively prescribed limits will not be considered disproportionate unless the sentencing court abused its discretion.); United States v. Organek, 65 F.3d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1995) (a sentence within the statutory maximum set by statute generally does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the present case, the district court explained the severe sentences imposed on Caracappa and Eppolito as follows: For many years, these two defendants, while members of the New York City Police Force, were employed by the mafia to murder, to reveal FBI and police files to criminals, to conduct surveillances as directed by mafia bosses, and to undertake other duties on behalf of mobsters. They were paid substantial retainers, with added amounts for the commission of specific criminal acts, including murders, collecting large sums of money over many years. Sentences are now imposed pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, relevant case law, and applicable statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25 (2d Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1027, 173 L.Ed.2d 313 (2009). The critical elements of the applicable statute in this case are general deterrence to discourage similar acts by others, and just punishment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). On June 5, 2006, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) were described as follows by the court: It is hard to visualize any more heinous offenses.... A heavy sentence is required to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offenses ... and to deter like conduct by any person who might be in the position of these defendants. It is necessary to deter their own criminal conduct as revealed by the circumstances of the events as late as 2005 and 2006 [when, as the Court of Appeals has now found, they continued to conspire to commit crimes with criminal mobsters ]. It is necessary under the statute to protect the public from further crimes of these defendants. A non-incarceratory sentence would not be appropriate. Hr'g Tr. 40-41, June 5, 2006. In addition to committing cruel murders and engaging in a dangerous racketeering conspiracy in violation of section 1962(d) of Title 18 of the United States Code (RICO), these two defendants have committed what amounts to treason against the people of the City of New York and their fellow police officers. They are sentenced to the maximum sentence of imprisonment and to the maximum fine for each crime of which they have been convicted, imposed consecutively. Judgment dated March 6, 2009, at 1-2 (alterations in original) (emphasis added). Although Caracappa contends that the district court's explanation of its reasons for the sentence, quoted in part in the Judgment, was inadequate to support the sentence imposed, he voiced no such objection in the district court. Thus, his present objection is reviewable only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.2007). We see no such error, and no prejudicial effect on Caracappa's substantial rights. While Caracappa argues that the transaction reflected in the record was a small one and that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Caracappa had solicited, wanted or even anticipated that Steven [ sic ] Corso would propose a drug transaction as a condition precedent for what was represented to be a legal negotiation coming to fruition (Caracappa brief on appeal at 54), the evidence as to that transaction, quoted in Part II.C.2 above, reveals that Caracappa unhesitatingly agreed to have his associate supply drugs as requested by Corso. Further, as the district court noted, the activities of Caracappa and Eppolito in Las Vegas were a continuation of their business of providing illicit services. As noted in Eppolito II, [t]he jury was entitled to view the offers of Eppolito and Caracappa to provide assistance to members and associates of organized crime as general and open-ended... and thus as encompassing defendants' conduct in Las Vegas, which included Eppolito's offers and attempts to launder the proceeds of narcotics trafficking and other organized crime activities, and Eppolito's and Caracappa's involvement in narcotics trafficking in order to induce would-be investors to give them money for a film in whose funding members of organized crime were integrally involved. 543 F.3d at 58. It was within the discretion of the district court to view Caracappa's narcotics trafficking as an integral part of his and Eppolito's criminal activity, rather than in isolation, and to impose the maximum punishment authorized by law.