United States v. Dupree
706 F.3d 131
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Dupree is former CEO of GDC, involved in a 2008 Credit Agreement with Amalgamated Bank.
- Aug 4, 2010, New York Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order requiring assets to be preserved and funds deposited at Amalgamated.
- In 2011, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Dupree with bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 based on post-arrest conduct.
- The government moved in limine to admit the August 4 Order to show Dupree’s knowledge and intent, not for the truth of the order’s terms.
- The district court denied the motion as hearsay and under Rule 403, and the government appealed, resulting in this appellate decision vacating and remanding.
- Dupree was convicted on four counts at trial; Count Five was dismissed then reindicted to reference the Credit Agreement provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the August 4 Order hearsay? | Dupree’s state order is offered for non-hearsay purpose to show knowledge. | District court correctly treated the Order as hearsay if offered for its truth. | Order not hearsay when used to show knowledge. |
| Does the Order have probative value on Dupree’s knowledge/intent? | Order tends to show Dupree knew of obligations under the Credit Agreement. | No probative value beyond the order’s legal effect and potential prejudice. | Order is probative on knowledge/intent when used non-hearstly. |
| Was the Rule 403 balancing properly conducted? | District court failed to assess probative value and limiting instructions could mitigate prejudice. | District court appropriately weighed potential prejudice and confusion. | Remand for a proper Rule 403 analysis consistent with this opinion. |
| Waiver issue – was the argument properly raised below? | Government asserted non-hearsay purpose below. | The issue was not properly preserved as to non-hearsay purpose. | Waiver arguments deemed addressed; not fatal to appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (deferential review of evidentiary rulings; abuse standard)
- George v. Celotex Corp., 914 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1990) (non-hearsay use to show effect on listener)
- Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2004) (notice of danger example; non-hearsay use)
- Pepin, 514 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (state of mind evidence; Rule 403 context)
- Mercado, 573 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2009) (limiting instructions and admissibility under 403)
- Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (limiting instructions can cure prejudice)
- Awadallah, 436 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2006) (deference to Rule 403 balancing; abuse standard)
- Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (1964) (contempt trial rights context)
- Boulware, 384 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2004) (prior judgment not hearsay when offered as legally operative conduct)