United States v. Gabriele
1:22-cr-00355
| E.D.N.Y | Feb 10, 2025Background
- Hector Rosario, a former detective with Nassau County Police Department, is scheduled for trial in February 2025 for charges related to obstructing a grand jury investigation involving organized crime activity.
- The government seeks to introduce evidence of Rosario’s involvement with the Bonanno and Genovese crime families’ illegal gambling operations, his relationship with cooperating witnesses, and various uncharged conduct to show motive and intent.
- Rosario moves to exclude references to organized crime, evidence of unrelated criminal activity, and certain disciplinary records from his police employment, arguing prejudicial impact outweighs their probative value.
- Both sides filed motions in limine to define the admissibility of evidence and arguments at trial, with the court addressing each request.
- The court applies Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 401, 403, 404(b), and 608, in determining the relevance and admissibility of disputed evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Organized Crime Evidence | Needed to show motive, opportunity, and intent; completes the narrative of charged crimes | Highly prejudicial, merely propensity evidence, unnecessary to prove charges | Government's motion granted; evidence admissible under Rules 403 & 404(b) |
| References to Punishment or Collateral Effects | Should be precluded at trial | No intent to introduce such evidence or arguments | Denied as moot |
| Rosario's Disciplinary Employment Records | Evidence of forgery and providing confidential information is probative of truthfulness on cross | Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; not all conduct reflects on truthfulness | Evidence of dishonesty admitted under Rule 608; only non-honesty-related charge excluded |
| Background of "Blue Tequila" Establishment | Evidence is necessary to complete story, prove knowledge and relationship with witnesses | Irrelevant, confusing, prejudicial, tied to unrelated crimes | Limited background evidence admissible; government may not use evidence of prostitution or narcotics |
| Evidence/argument re: organized crime names/terms | Relevant to show relationship, loyalty, and motive | Overly prejudicial, risks bias | Evidence admissible; government’s motion to admit references granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) (describing admissibility of other acts as direct evidence or under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) (upholding use of background evidence to prove knowing and willful conduct)
- United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing admissibility of uncharged crimes not more inflammatory than the charged offense)
- United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990) (allowing background evidence that is not more sensational than the charged crimes)