United States v. DiNapoli case brief summary
8 F.3d 909 (2d Cir. 1993)
CASE FACTS
Appellants sought review of their criminal convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962 (1988). The court refused to allow into evidence the grand jury testimony of two defense witnesses who invoked the privilege against self-incrimination at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) because appellee prosecutor had different motives when examining the witnesses at the two proceedings. On appeal, the court was reversed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the district court, holding that appellee prosecutor did not have substantially similar interests in questioning witnesses before a grand jury and at trial, therefore, the district court correctly refused to admit the witnesses' grand jury testimony.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
8 F.3d 909 (2d Cir. 1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Before the court on remand from the
United States Supreme Court regarding the district court's refusal to
admit into evidence defense witnesses' grand jury testimony in
appellants' trial for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962 (1988).CASE FACTS
Appellants sought review of their criminal convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962 (1988). The court refused to allow into evidence the grand jury testimony of two defense witnesses who invoked the privilege against self-incrimination at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) because appellee prosecutor had different motives when examining the witnesses at the two proceedings. On appeal, the court was reversed.
DISCUSSION
- On further appeal, the court reversed again, holding that in assessing similarity of motive, the party that resisted the offered testimony at trial must have had, at a prior proceeding, an interest of substantially similar intensity to prove (or disprove) the same side of a substantially similar issue.
- Appellee's motives in examining the witnesses before the grand jury and at trial were not substantially similar because appellee had no interest in showing the witnesses' testimony to be false before the grand jury.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the district court, holding that appellee prosecutor did not have substantially similar interests in questioning witnesses before a grand jury and at trial, therefore, the district court correctly refused to admit the witnesses' grand jury testimony.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment