United States v. Caramadre
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67421
D.R.I.2012Background
- In 2009, government agents investigated a fraudulent scheme involving terminally-ill individuals used as measuring lives for bonds and annuities.
- Defendants Caramadre and Radhakrishnan allegedly offered money to ill individuals to sign documents for the scheme.
- The government sought pretrial Rule 15 depositions of nine witnesses; the court previously allowed under certain conditions to preserve testimony.
- Six witnesses were deposed between Sept. 2009 and Apr. 2010; the Targets testified and were represented by counsel at these depositions.
- Several witnesses later died or became too ill to testify; indictment followed in Nov. 2011 charging wire/mail fraud, conspiracy, identity fraud, money laundering, and witness tampering.
- Defendants then moved to suppress the Rule 15 depositions as the trial approached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15 depositions were misused as a grand jury tool | Caramadre argues improper grand jury use; government says not used for Grand Jury. | Radhakrishnan contends improper deployment of depositions for grand jury purposes. | Depositions not used as grand jury tool; no reversal; permissible preservation. |
| Whether Sixth Amendment notice and cross-examination rights were violated pre-indictment | Caramadre contends failure to inform charges and allow effective cross-examination. | Radhakrishnan asserts adequate notice and cross-examination opportunity under Crawford and Rule 804(b)(1). | No Sixth Amendment violation; Crawford and 804(b)(1) satisfied; cross-examination adequate. |
| Whether the government exaggerated the need for depositions in 2009 | Caramadre alleges no exceptional circumstances warranted depositions. | Radhakrishnan argues circumstances were truly exceptional and preservation justified. | Exceptional circumstances existed; preservation for trial justified. |
| Whether Rule 403 prejudice or cumulative effect invalidates depositions | Caramadre claims unfair prejudice and cumulative effect. | Radhakrishnan contends probative value outweighs prejudice. | Probativeness outweighed potential prejudice; admissible under Rule 403. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flemmi, 245 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2001) (presumption of regularity for grand jury proceedings)
- United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (Sixth Amendment and pre-indictment depositions not triggering counsel right)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (pre-indictment rights and counsel interplay with notice)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation rights and admissibility of prior testimony)
- United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994) (cross-examination opportunity standard)
- United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2000) (detailing rule impact on rights)
- United States v. Bartelho, 129 F.3d 663 (1st Cir. 1997) (confrontation and 804(b)(1) applicability)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 697 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.R.I. 2010) (lower court framework for Rule 15 pre-indictment depositions)