Archive | Uncategorized

United States v. Bastian, No. 13-1156-cr (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2014) (Katzmann, Sack, and Lynch), available here

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and to possessing a firearm in connection with that drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)). But the plea to the gun charge was based on the possession of a different weapon from the one identified in the indictment. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court’s acceptance of the plea constructively amended the indictment and that the court’s failure to inform him of his rights under the Grand Jury Clause prevented him from entering a knowing and voluntary plea.

Because these claims were not raised in the district court, the Circuit reviewed them for plain error only. And defendant could not satisfy that rigorous standard. The Court noted that, while two circuits have held that variations from the specific weapon named in an indictment can constructively amend an indictment, several cases …

United States v. Fazio, Nos. 12-3786-cr, 12-3799-cr, 12-3874-cr (2d Cir. Oct. 22, 2014) (Walker, Leval, and Wesley), available here

Anthony Fazio, Sr., Anthony Fazio, Jr., and John Fazio, Jr., were officers in Local 348 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. They allegedly demanded that business owners employing Local 348 members make payments to the Fazios “to ensure a good working relationship with the union.” The government claimed that the Fazios’ demands for money were accompanied by threats of economic and physical harm.

Following a jury trial in the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.), defendants were convicted of all counts, which included racketeering conspiracy and extortion conspiracy.  On appeal, they challenged: (1) a ruling admitting evidence that certain witnesses believed that defendants were connected to organized crime, (2) the denial of a requested jury charge that the “fear” element of extortion cannot be satisfied by a threat of loss of economic advantage …

United States v. Zhyltsou, No. 13-803-cr (Wesley,Livingston, and Lohier), available here

United States v. Soler, No. 12-2077-CR (2d. Cir. July 22, 2014) (Katzmann, Walker, and Droney), available
here

United States v. McDonald, No. 12-2056-CR (2d Cir. July 22, 2014) (Cabranes, Sack, and Lynch), Available Here

During deliberations in defendant’s fraud trial, the jury announced that it had reached a guilty verdict. When the jury was polled, Jurors 1-10 so confirmed, but Juror No. 11, asked whether guilty was her verdict, answered “no.” With the parties’ agreement, the trial court (Koeltl, J.) told the jury that he would “send you back to deliberate to see whether you can reach a unanimous verdict, in light of all the instructions I have given you.”

After deliberations resumed, the court told the parties that he had identified a model instruction (Sand ¶ 9.12) applicable where a jury poll reveals a lack of unanimity. The first part of the model instruction tracks what the jury had already been told. The second part, however, contains a modified Allen charge, encouraging the jurors to …

United States v. Komasa, No. 13-1534-cr(L) (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2014) (Pooler, Hall, and Lohier), available here

United States v. Mergen, No. 12-2873-cr (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) (Katzmann, Jacobs, and Duffy), available here

United States v. Ledee, No. 13-2363-cr (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2014) (Walker, Pooler, and Wesley), available here

The defendant was convicted of crimes stemming from participating via webcam in the sexual abuse of an eight-year-old girl by her mother. At trial, the district court granted the government’s motion to close the courtroom during the victim’s testimony to all persons who were not directly involved in the trial, including the defendant’s parents.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the courtroom closure violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Circuit, over a dissent by Judge Pooler, disagreed and affirmed. [Disclosure: Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., represents the defendant in this case.]

For a courtroom to be closed to the public in compliance with the Sixth Amendment, four requirements must be met: (1) the closure must “advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced;” (2) …

United States v. Park, No. 13-4142-cr (2d Cir. July 9, 2014) (Cabranes, Carney, and Droney) (per curiam), available here

United States v. Reed, No. 13-0359(L) (2d Cir. June 25, 2014) (Jacobs, Calabresi, and Pooler), available here

Herrera-Gomez v. United States, No. 14-1166 (2d Cir. June 17, 2014) (Winter, Walker, and Cabranes) (per curiam), available here