Opinion ID: 3011239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conduit Evidence

Text: Serafini argues that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the conversations and the transfer of funds in transactions that involved other conduits like Serafini -- i.e., other people through whom Michael and Empire funneled contributions -- but did not involve Serafini himself. The evidence admitted by the District Court consisted of reimbursement checks and conduit witnesses' testimony as to the conversations. These conduit conversations fall into two categories: those to which Michael was a party, and those to which he was not. The District Court admitted testimony in both categories. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the checks that wer e in the same series of checks as the check issued to Serafini, nor in admitting the testimony as to the conversations that involved Michael. In order to prove that Serafini had committed perjury, the government was r equired to demonstrate the falsity of Serafini's claim that the check he received from Michael was not a reimbursement. See A. at 695-96. The fact that the Serafini check was one in a series of apparent reimbursement checks was r elevant to this requirement. Michael's previous actions were relevant to show that Michael, one of the parties to the transaction involving Serafini, understood it as a reimbursement. Serafini argues that even if the checks wer e admissible, the conversations were inadmissible hearsay. W e conclude that the conversations in which Michael was involved wer e 15 admissible under the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3),17 as evidence of Michael's state of mind at the time of the conversations. Michael's state of mind during these conduit transactions was r elevant to show that he intended his check to Serafini to be a reimbursement (as he did with the other conduits); this evidence tends to support an inference that it was Michael's general practice to reimburse contributors for their contributions, and thus that the check to Serafini was in fact a reimbursement. The admission of the conduit conversations that did not involve Michael had a far more attenuated connection to Serafini's guilt. We find some merit to Serafini's contentions that these were of marginal relevance and were inadmissible as hearsay. However, the evidence contained in these conduit conversations was almost wholly cumulative of the evidence contained in those conversations that did involve Michael, which, as described above, were properly admitted into evidence. We ther efore find that the error, if any, in admitting the r emaining conduit conversations did not affect Serafini's substantial rights, and was therefore harmless.18 _________________________________________________________________ 17. We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, that the probative value of these conversations, and of the checks, was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect -- a determination to which we must give substantial deference. Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep't, 174 F.3d 95, 110 (3d Cir. 1999). We note also that the District Court properly gave a cautionary instruction to limit the danger of unfair prejudice. See A. at 3337-38 (District Court's statement that the jury could not consider the conduit evidence to establish Serafini's knowledge). 18. Serafini also raises challenges to other evidentiary decisions made by the District Court, including the exclusion of hearsay concerning the purported car repairs, and the admission of (1) evidence concerning Serafini's financial stake in Empire; (2) evidence that Empire paid Serafini's counsel fees; (3) portions of the agr eement to sell Empire; (4) a letter Serafini wrote to his Congressman concerning Empire; and (5) evidence as to Serafini's involvement in Empir e lobbying. We find no error in the District Court's rulings or its r easoning on these matters, and will affirm these evidentiary rulings. 16