United States v. Gioeli, Saracino
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13641
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Gioeli and Saracino were convicted as Colombo crime family members; S-6 indictment alleged racketeering conspiracy with multiple predicate acts.
- Jury found Gioeli guilty of three racketeering acts and Saracino of five; both convicted of racketeering conspiracy.
- Cooperators and superseding indictments (S-2, S-4, S-6) evolved the charges during 2008–2010.
- Gioeli challenged evidence—Brady nondisclosure, Fourth Amendment suppression, multiplicity, and outrageous government conduct; Saracino challenged severance and sentencing based on acquitted/uncharged conduct.
- District court denied post-trial motions; on appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed all challenged district court rulings.
- Sentences: Gioeli received 224 months; Saracino received a consolidated 50-year term, with considerations for acquitted and uncharged murders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady nondisclosure prejudice | Gioeli and Saracino contend nondisclosed material could affect verdict. | Gioeli/Saracino argue Brady violated; prejudice undermines confidence in verdict. | No prejudice; disclosures not undermining verdict confidence. |
| Multiplicity of racketeering acts | Gioeli argues Act 5A duplicates Act 3; violates double jeopardy. | Government contends acts have distinct objectives; not multiplicious. | Issue moot; remaining acts support conspiracy; no reversal. |
| Suppression of evidence | Gioeli seeks suppression of materials seized and address-book findings. | Gov't misconduct in obtaining or using materials; suppression warranted. | Two suppression arguments rejected; any error harmless. |
| Sentencing without Fatico hearing | Saracino argues sentencing based on acquitted/uncled murders without Fatico hearing. | District court should have held Fatico; denial improper. | District court may rely on trial evidence; no Fatico hearing required. |
| Severance and prejudice | Saracino claims severance required to avoid spillover prejudice. | Joint trial would prejudice Saracino. | No abuse of discretion; no reversible prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (Brady material must be capable of reversing the verdict)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court 1995) (material suppression undermines confidence in verdict)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court 1999) (reasonable probability of different result required)
- United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) (harmless-error standard at sentencing)
- United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court broad sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court 2010) (pre-sentencing consideration of evidence from trial)
- United States v. Phillips, 431 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for rebutting government’s sentencing assertions)
- United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313 (2d Cir. 1994) (private search issues and evidence suppression scope)
- United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) (outrageous government conduct standard is very demanding)