Court Opinion

ID: 9486599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:53:48.671596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:49.280418
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse Rugiero’s conviction because of the prosecutor’s violation of the sequestration rule. The Court is right to suggest that the prosecutor obviously violated the rule.by not keeping Milewski out of the courtroom while under subpoena to testify and by staging a confrontation and conversation between him and a witness who was testifying. The obvious purpose of this confrontation was to get Milewski to testify in a way that would be consistent with the testimony of the witness who was then on the stand. The witness on the stand told Milew-ski facts that the government wanted Milew-ski to testify to. Milewski then did so testify. This is too much of a violation to condone or to sweep under the “harmless error” rug. We are always reluctant, as we should be, to set aside a verdict on a technicality when it is'fairly clear that the defendant is guilty and may have been convicted anyway. But if prosecutors know that in such circumstances we will always overlook egregious transgressions they will then have no incentive to play ball by the rules. The “war on drugs” of the last decade has emboldened many prosecutors to believe that they are immune from normal rules of procedure in criminal cases. In our zest to incarcerate, we are in danger of losing the rule of law. This is such an obvious and notorious violation in this case that I would reverse and remand for a new trial.