United States v. Mario Lobo, 516 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Mario Lobo, 516 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Maria Irma Ramos, 981 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 884 Codefendant's statements and jury perception of innocence6 citing casescodefendant was allowed to challenge flight instruction inapplicable to him on the ground that it had a harmful effect on his defense1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Maria Irma Ramos, 981 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
    Indeed, Ramos' "continued presence, by contrast, might have been viewed by the jury as belief in [her] own innocence." United States v. Lobo, 516 F.2d 883, 884 (2d Cir.1975); see also United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 501 (9th Cir.19…
  • Russell v. United States, 586 A.2d 695 (D.C. 1991).published
    Appellant’s “continued presence, by contrast, could have been viewed by the jury as belief in [her] own innocence,” United States v. Lobo, 516 F.2d 883, 884 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837 , 96 S.Ct. 65 , 46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975), especi…
  • United States v. Diane Candoli, 870 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1989).published 5 cites
    (codefendant was allowed to challenge flight instruction inapplicable to him on the ground that it had a harmful effect on his defense)
  • United States v. Thevis, 474 F. Supp. 117 (N.D. Ga. 1979).published
    There is no Bruton problem with this statement, United States v. Lobo, 516 F.2d 883, 884 (2nd Cir. 1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 837 , 96 S.Ct. 65 , 46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975), and, accordingly no ground for a discretionary severance under Rule 1…
  • United States v. Richard Lester Cleveland, Jr., United States of Am. v. Robert William Lewey, 590 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1978).published
    We agree with the Second Circuit that the “rub-off” from a codefendant’s personal confession will not necessarily require a separate trial, accord, United States v. Guillette, 547 F.2d 743, 755 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 839 ,…
  • United States v. Aloi, 449 F. Supp. 698 (E.D.N.Y. 1977).published
    Bruton , however, has no application where the “hearsay utterances of a defendant ... do not inculpate a co-defendant.” United States v. Lobo, 516 F.2d 883, 884 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837 , 96 S.Ct. 65 , 46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975) (pe…
At page 885 Determining when inference of guilt is practically inescapable3 citing cases1021, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 530 (1970); United States ex rel. LaBelle v. Mancusi, 404 F.2d 690 (2d Cir. 1968). Thus, Lobo’s argument is reduced to the…opening of page *885 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • State v. Melendez, 609 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1992).published 2 cites
    See United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 502 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Lobo, 516 F.2d 883, 885 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837 , 96 S.Ct. 65 , 46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975); Russell v. United States, 586 A.2d 695 (D.C.1991); Camp v…
  • United States v. Diane Candoli, 870 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1989).published 5 cites
    See Jenkins, 785 F.2d at 1393 (defendant’s challenge to the admission of the deposition testimony of his codefendant was rejected where the deposition testimony did not implicate the defendant); Lobo, 516 F.2d at 884-85 (codefendant was al…
  • United States v. George Ted Phillips, 640 F.2d 87 (7th Cir. 1981).published
    We believe that the instruction cured any possible prejudicial effect. 7 See United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227, 1236 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Lobo, 516 F.2d 883, 885 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837 , 96 S.Ct. 65 , 46 L.E…
At page 883 “continued presence, by contrast, might have been viewed by the jury as belief in her own innocence.”0 citing cases1 citing court quotes it
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
    v.
    Mario LOBO, Defendant-Appellant
    1031, Docket 75-1034.
    Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
    May 14, 1975.
    Published opinion
    516 F.2d 883
    1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14680
    Albert J. Krieger, New York City, for defendant-appellant., Paul B. Bergman, Asst. U. S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., for appellee.
    Kaufman, Oakes, Jameson, Judge'.
    Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
    PER CURIAM:

    Lobo’s sole ground for appeal is based on the flight during trial of his codefendant, Aurelio Martinez-Martinez. After declaring Martinez-Martinez’s $100,000 bail forfeit, Judge Mishler permitted the joint trial to proceed, and the jury convicted Lobo and Martinez-Martinez in absentia. The jury was properly instructed that although flight is probative of guilt, evidence of the flight should be considered only against Martinez-Martinez. Lobo contends that the limiting instruction was inadequate in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), where a limiting instruction was held insufficient to dispel the prejudice resulting from a hearsay confession of a defendant inculpating his codefendant.

    We fail to see, however, that Martinez-Martinez’s decision to flee implied the guilt of anyone but himself; indeed, Lobo’s continued presence, by contrast, might have been viewed by the jury as belief in his own innocence. It seems clear that Bruton has no application to hearsay utterances of a defendant [1] that do not inculpate a codefendant. United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930, 94 S.Ct. 2640, 41 L.Ed.2d 233 (1974); United States v. Davis, 487 F.2d 112, 124 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 981, 94 S.Ct. 1573, 39 L.Ed.2d 878 (1974); United States v. Lomprez, 472 F.2d 860, 863 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 965, 93 S.Ct. 2144, 36 L.Ed.2d 685 (1973). See also United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 116 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019, 92 S.Ct. 682, 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972); United States ex rel. Nelson v. Follette, 430 F.2d 1055 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 917, 91 S.Ct. 899, 27 L.Ed.2d 818 (1971); United States v. Cusumano, 429 F.2d 378, 381 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 830, 91 S.Ct. 61, 27 L.Ed.2d 61 (1970); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1080—81 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S.[*885] 1021, 90 S.Ct. 1262, 25 L.Ed.2d 530 (1970); United States ex rel. LaBelle v. Mancusi, 404 F.2d 690 (2d Cir. 1968).

    Thus, Lobo’s argument is reduced to the claim that his fate and that of Martinez-Martinez were so inextricably linked that evidence of Martinez-Martinez’s guilt implied his own guilt as well. It is plain that in the circumstances present here, the inference is insubstantial, see Bruton, supra, 391 U.S. at 135 — 36, 88 S.Ct. 1620, and the jury could easily disregard it under the proper limiting instruction given by Judge Mishler. As we said in United States v. Sparano, 422 F.2d 1095, 1099 (2d Cir. 1970):

    We agree and hold that, to constitute a violation, the inference [of defendant’s guilt] would have to be clear and practically inescapable.

    Lobo has failed to make such a showing here.

    Affirmed.

    1

    . While a flight, even though nonverbal conduct, has been said to be an assertion (in the form of an admission) of guilt and is therefore treated by some authorities as an exception to the hearsay rule, see McCormick §§ 250, 271 (2d ed. 1972), it is treated in the Federal Rules of Evidence, App. foil. 28 U.S.C., Rule 801(a) as a “statement” but because it is an admission as “not hearsay,” Rule 801(d)(2)(A). See Strahom, A Reconsideration of the Hearsay Rule and Admissions, 85 U.Pa.L.Rev. 484, 564, 573, 576 (1937). Preferably it is to be viewed as conduct offered as circumstantial evidence rather than for its assertive, testimonial value. See Strahorn, supra; McCormick, supra, § 262 at 628-29.