Court Opinion

ID: 9487270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:12:08.605563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:10.537866
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Miner’s opinion affirming the conviction. However, I believe the district court should not have admitted into evidence Giorgi’s prior conviction under section 1001. I think that the prior conviction has but the slightest, if any, probative value with respect to Giorgi’s intent, knowledge or state of mind in the present case, especially as compared to the potential for unfair prejudice. Giorgi had made a prior oral representation to a special agent of the Department of Labor that he was a graduate of the Syracuse University Law School, whereas he knew that he never even attended the school. Here, he indicated on the form to his probation officer that he did not own a car, whereas he knew he owned a Porsche. The contents, modes of delivery, recipients, and contexts of the false statements are entirely different. The simple fact that the type of crime is the same — misrepresentation to a government department or agency — is not a sufficient similarity. See United States v. Gordon, 987 F.2d 902, 908-09 (2d Cir.1993).
Nevertheless, I believe the admission of the prior conviction was harmless error. Even absent this evidence, the other evidence presented in the case was so clear and overwhelming that the jury would most likely have found the defendant guilty anyway.