Pizzuti v. United States
809 F. Supp. 2d 164
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- DiPietro and Pizzuti sought broad discovery under 28 U.S.C. §2255 relating to their convictions and related state and federal investigations.
- Petitioners move for Brady/Giglio material, interview notes, Form 302s, and other discovery including Perazzo-related video tapes and cooperation records.
- The court evaluates discovery requests against the good-cause standard for habeas petitions and procedural-bar principles.
- The court consolidates the §2255 motions with the underlying criminal case and addresses multiple categories of requests separately.
- The court grants limited discovery (notably Sanginiti Form 302s/notes and an unredacted FOIA version) and orders production if in government possession, while denying其他 requests without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to discovery under §2255 for Brady/Giglio material | DiPietro seeks Brady/Giglio material to support claims of suppression. | Government argues limited discovery under good-cause and that many claims are procedurally barred. | Discovery allowed for specific Brady/Giglio issues with good-cause basis; others denied. |
| Whether Form 302s and related Sanginiti materials must be produced | DiPietro claims undisclosed/alternate Form 302s and drafts exist; seeks unredacted version. | Government contends all materials were produced; discrepancies questioned are insufficient. | Petitioners entitled to all Sanginiti Form 302s and notes, including unredacted version; explain discrepancies if versions differ. |
| Whether the original wiretap application for Pizzuti’s number must be produced | Pizzuti asserts the original application was not provided and is necessary for ineffective assistance claim. | Government says related documents were produced; originals not provided. | Original wiretap application must be produced to the extent in government possession. |
| Whether discovery regarding Perazzo-related records (tapes, letters, grand jury material) is warranted | Requests seek surveillance tapes, Perazzo’s letters, and related grand jury materials to impeach or support claims. | Material already litigated; claims are often procedurally barred or lacking good cause. | Many Perazzo-related requests barred or denied; some limited Brady/Giglio considerations addressed; key items may be barred. |
| Whether requests concerning other potential witnesses (Wieland, Taddeo, Nicaj, Mustafaj) are warranted | Requests aim to uncover exculpatory statements not disclosed before trial. | Arguments are insufficient or procedurally barred for want of good cause. | Requests denied for Wieland, Taddeo, Nicaj, Mustafaj absent additional showing; procedural bars apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Supreme Court 1985) (materiality defined by reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court 1995) (materiality and cumulative suppression considerations)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court 1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense)
- Marone v. United States, 10 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1993) (procedural bar for claims not raised on direct appeal require cause/prejudice)
- United States v. Pipitone, 67 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (second-strike rule: claims could have been raised on direct appeal)
- United States v. Grossman, 843 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1988) (Brady material and discovery standards in habeas context)
- Gotti v. United States, 622 F. Supp. 2d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (preference to adjudicate claims on the merits; discovery limits)
- Hayden v. United States, 814 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1987) (hearsay limitations on evidentiary hearings in habeas context)
- Dalli v. United States, 491 F.2d 758 (2d Cir. 1974) (evidentiary hearing standards; admissibility of evidence)