United States v. Gupta
747 F.3d 111
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Gupta was Goldman Sachs director and partner in Voyager and New Silk Route; he and Rajaratnam had a close personal and business relationship.
- The government investigated insider trading at Galleon, including wiretaps of Rajaratnam, which revealed Gupta passing inside information about Goldman to Rajaratnam.
- Gupta was charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and three counts of securities fraud related to Goldman trades by Rajaratnam in fall 2008.
- The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence: contemporaneous Goldman board events, late-day trading by Galleon, and wiretapped calls linking Gupta to Rajaratnam’s trades.
- The jury convicted Gupta on the conspiracy count and Counts Three, Four, and Five; he was sentenced to prison, fine, and later restitution in an amended judgment.
- Gupta appeals, challenging the admissibility of Rajaratnam’s wiretapped conversations and the district court’s exclusion of certain Gupta defense evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of wiretap statements | Rajaratnam statements admissible as coconspirator statements | Statements not in furtherance of Gupta-Rajaratnam conspiracy | Statements admitted under Rules 801(d)(2)(E) and 804(b)(3) |
| Conspiracy admissibility for Lau calls | Lau was in conspiratorial network with Gupta | Lau not a coconspirator; may be non-conspirator hearsay evidence | Rajaratnam-Lau statements admitted as in furtherance of conspiracy and as penal-interest hearsay |
| Limitations on Gupta defense evidence (Geetanjali testimony) | Defense evidence essential to motive and state of mind | Court abused Rule 403 by limiting testimony | No abuse; any error (if any) was harmless |
| Loeb documents as alternative source evidence | Evidence could show alternative tipper | Documents lack foundation and relevance; would confuse jury | Exclusion upheld; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1990) (conspiracy evidence admissibility; coconspirator statements)
- United States v. SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., 195 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1999) (coconspirator statements must advance conspiracy ends)
- Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. v. United States, 871 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1989) (standard for in-furtherance threshold; narratives insufficient)
- Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 801(d)(2) expert on conspirator statements; nonmember listener permitted)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (state-of-mind exception requires corroboration; broad discretion for reliability)
- Saget v. United States, 377 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2004) (Rule 804(b)(3) reliability and corroboration balancing)
- Persico, 645 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2011) (penal-interest exception requires corroboration)
- Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (trustworthiness assessment for penal-interest statements)
- Salvador, 820 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1987) (corroborating circumstances must be strong)
- Oluwanisola, 605 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (harmless error framework for evidentiary rulings)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 748 (1946) (harmless error considering overall case strength)
- Pujana-Mena, 949 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1991) (character evidence instruction not required)
- Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361 (1896) (older precedents cited in Pujana-Mena discussion)
- Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948) (older precedents cited in Pujana-Mena discussion)