United States v. Defilippo, 18-2249

DeFilippo, an Amtrak police officer hired in 2007, sought prior-service credit for time served with the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD).
Since 2003 he had served as an SCPD auxiliary (volunteer, non‑sworn) officer; SCPD provided a letter verifying that status.
DeFilippo submitted a doctored letter to Amtrak that represented he was a "Reserve Police Officer" and an "active member," leading to a pay adjustment and $4,000 backpay as part of a union settlement.
Federal agents investigated; DeFilippo denied altering the letter during an interview, later admitting he added the word "active" but denying he changed "auxiliary" to "reserve."
A jury convicted him of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and making false statements; the district court sentenced him to two years probation and a $1,500 fine.
The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions, addressing (1) sufficiency/materiality of the false statement and (2) alleged Rule of Completeness error in excluding portions of his recorded interview.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency / materiality of false statement for wire fraud and conspiracy	Government: DeFilippo's misrepresentation that he was a "reserve" officer was capable of influencing Amtrak's decision; testimony showed reserves "typically qualify" for credit.	DeFilippo: "Reserve" status does not necessarily mean sworn; misrepresentation was immaterial and, at most, would prompt further inquiry.	Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to Government, jury could reasonably find the misstatement material given Amtrak official's understanding.
Rule of Completeness — exclusion of portions of recorded federal interview	Government: Admitted excerpts showed consciousness of guilt; excluded portions not necessary and not substantially exculpatory.	DeFilippo: Excluded statements showed he believed reserves and auxiliaries were equivalent for credit, undermining consciousness‑of‑guilt inference.	Affirmed — even if exclusion erred, any error was harmless because admitted portions let jury assess his claimed belief.

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality element for fraud)
United States v. Weaver, 860 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2017) (definition of materiality)
United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019) (sufficiency review standard)
United States v. Thiam, 934 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2019) (rule of completeness applies only where redaction distorts meaning)
United States v. Johnson, 507 F.3d 793 (2d Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for completeness rulings)
United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (deference to district court evidentiary rulings unless manifestly erroneous)
United States v. Cadet, 664 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for harmlessness of evidentiary error)