Lumbar v. United States (1988)

This was of great benefit to them, cf. United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1396-97 (D.C.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) (“money launderers play an essential part in a [§ 846] conspiracy”) and, as a general partner in the several limited partnerships which received these investments, it was also another way for Sax to continue enjoying the fruits of the ongoing conspiracy.

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1409 (D.C.Cir.) (“The ‘specific contradiction’ rule ... is a particular instance of the trial court’s general power under Fed.R.Evid. 403 to exclude evidence ‘if its probative value is substantially outweighed ... by considerations of undue delay, [or] waste of time.’ ”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); Pisan, 636 F.2d at 858 ; 3 Weinstein’s Evidence, 607[5], at 607-79, -80 (1992).

“An error is harmless if the reviewing court, after viewing the entire record, determines that no substantial rights of the defendant were affected, and that the error did not influence or had only a very slight influence on the verdict.” United States v. Cortez, 935 F.2d 135, 140 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. McCrady, 774 F.2d 868, 874 (8th Cir.1985) (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1062 , 112 S.Ct. 945 , 117 L.Ed.2d 114 (1992); see also United States…

“An error is harmless -5- if the reviewing court, after viewing the entire record, determines that no substantial rights of the defendant were affected, and that the error did not influence or had only a very slight influence on the verdict.” United States v. Cortez, 935 F.2d 135, 140 (8th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v.McCrady, 774 F.2d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1062 (1992); see also United States v. Roberts, 844 F.2d 537, 54…

See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1048 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Modica, 663 F.2d at 1179 ; see also United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 936 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 936 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S.Ct. 2269 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1284 (1982).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1407 (D.C.Cir.) (where defense counsel was given opportunity to, and did, question witness about important aspects of plea bargain, restrictions on questioning as to that source of bias were permissible), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840 , 109 S.Ct. 108 , 102 *1335 L.Ed.2d 83 (1988) (appellant Burns), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) (appellant Tarantino); see also United States v. Foster, 982 F.2d 5…

See, e.g., United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1314, 1316 (8th Cir.1990) (citing United States v. Roberts, 844 F.2d 537, 547 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 983, 109 S.Ct. 172 , 534, 102 L.Ed.2d 141, 565 (1988)).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1398 (D.C.Cir.) (trial judge is usually in the best position to evaluate the resulting degree of prejudice, and jury instructions generally are sufficient to minimize any disparities in evidence), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 (1988).

See United States v. Taranrino, 846 F.2d 1384 , 1399-99 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 (1988).

See, e.g., United States v. Klein, 850 F.2d 404, 406 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 173 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Roberts, 747 F.2d 404, 405 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 (1988). 5 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument.

See also United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1391 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840 , 109 S.Ct. 108 , 102 L.Ed.2d 83 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) (holding that a “verdict must be upheld if the evidence adequately supports a finding that a single conspiracy existed.”).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1403-04 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Klein, 850 F.2d 404, 405-06 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 173 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 114 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945 , 107 S.Ct. 1603 , 94 L.Ed.2d 789 (1987); United States v. Uzzolino, 651 F.2d 207 , 210 n. 2 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 865 , 102 S.Ct. 327 , 70 L.Ed.2d 166 (1981).

See United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927 , 934 & n. 1 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 932, 109 5.

United States v. Short, 805 F.2d 335, 336-37 (8th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Klein, 850 F.2d 404, 405 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 173 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

But here the deputy’s actions in foisting the religious tract upon defendant constituted an effort by law enforcement to “interfere[ ] with the free and unhampered decision of [defendant] to testify” (People v Webb, 195 AD2d 614, 615 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 808 [1993]; see United States v Pinto, 850 F2d 927, 932 [2d Cir 1988], certs denied 488 US 867 , 932 [1988]; Andrews v State, 443 So 2d 78, 84 [Fla 1983]).

But here the deputy’s actions in foisting the religious tract upon defendant constituted an effort by law enforcement to “interfere[ ] with the free and unhampered decision of [defendant] to testify” (People v Webb, 195 AD2d 614, 615 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 808 [1993]; see United States v Pinto, 850 F2d 927, 932 [2d Cir 1988], certs denied 488 US 867 , 932 [1988]; Andrews v State, 443 So 2d 78, 84 [Fla 1983]).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 , 1414 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1414 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 , 1414 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 *24 F.2d 1384, 1414 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840 , 109 S.Ct. 108 , 102 L.Ed.2d 83 and cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); see also United States v. Stuart, 718 F.2d 931 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that defendant "opened the door" to prior consistent statement by using portions of that statement on cross-examination).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) (“statements made by the defendant” does not include co-conspirator statements, even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for the purposes of the hearsay rule); United States v. Roberts, 811 F.2d 257 (4th Cir.1987) (plain language of Rule 16(a)(1)(A) pertains to discovery of statements made by defendant, and rule does not mention, no…

See e.g., United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 , 1411-3 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988), appeal from rem., 905 F.2d 458 (1990); United States v. Snider, 720 F.2d 985, 992 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1107 , 104 S.Ct. 1613 , 80 L.Ed.2d 142 (1984) ("To be admissible, the statements must somehow advance the objectives of the conspiracy, not merely inform the listener of the declarant's activities.”) .

White Indus. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 611 F.Supp. 1049, 1069-70 (W.D.Mo.1985); see United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Vence v. United States, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); Possick, 849 F.2d at 339 ; United States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770, 776 (9th Cir.1980); Scales, 594 F.2d at 563-64 ; Smyth, 556 F.2d at 1182-84 ; accord United States v. Goichman, 407 F.Supp. 980, 998 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 547 F.2d 778 (3d Cir.197…

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1405 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840 , 109 S.Ct. 108 , 102 L.Ed.2d 83 , 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988). 113 We conclude, however, that the district court applied an overly narrow definition of "new matter." The district court interpreted the standard to preclude recross if the questions fell within an "area" o…

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1405 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840 , 109 S.Ct. 108 , 102 L.Ed.2d 83 , 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

Accord United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1418 (D.C.Cir.) (declining to require discovery of coconspirator statement absent Constitutional or statutory authority and citing cases in agreement), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

Hammad, 858 F.2d at 838-39 ; see also United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988).

See United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 772-74 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). 19 The panel's ruling also creates serious problems for the Government in the development of evidence at the grand jury.

See United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988); United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 772-74 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) (activities of conspirator unrelated to the aims of the conspiracy not attributable to co-conspirators); United States v. Koopmans, 757 F.2d 901, 905 (7th Cir.1985) (statement by declarant who terminated his involvement in a conspiracy not admissible against a defendant who joined the conspiracy after declarant had left).

See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) (activities of conspirator unrelated to the aims of the conspiracy not attributable to co-conspirators); United States v. Koopmans, 757 F.2d 901, 905 (7th Cir.1985) (statement by declarant who terminated his involvement in a conspiracy not admissible against a defendant who joined the conspiracy after declarant had left).