United States v. HANDLER
1:23-cr-00004
| S.D.N.Y. | Jul 22, 2024Background
- Defendant Arie Rangott was charged in a three-count superseding indictment involving conspiracies to defraud the federal government and obstruct HHS investigations, relating to the Head Start program at PSCHS.
- The counts include (1) conspiracy to obstruct HHS functions from 2019–2023, (2) conspiracy to submit a false letter to HHS in December 2021, and (3) conspiracy to obstruct an HHS OIG whistleblower investigation in 2022.
- The government moved to admit certain out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators as non-hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)(E).
- Rangott moved to exclude the testimony of a former PSCHS Fiscal Officer concerning her reasons for resigning, arguing the testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial.
- Both parties opposed each other's motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence.
- The district court conditionally admitted the co-conspirator statements and excluded the Fiscal Officer’s testimony about her resignation reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of co-conspirator statements as non-hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) | Government: Statements made during and in furtherance of conspiracies involving Rangott are admissible. | Rangott: Objects on constitutional and foundation grounds, questions relevance. | Conditionally granted admission; statements are admissible if government supplies requisite proof at trial. |
| Admission of co-conspirator statements made before Rangott joined conspiracy | Government: Such statements are admissible if the prerequisites are otherwise met. | Rangott: Implicitly objects, challenging timing relevance. | Court agrees such statements are admissible if the conditions of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) are satisfied. |
| Preclusion of Fiscal Officer’s resignation testimony | Rangott: Testimony not relevant to charged conspiracies and is prejudicial/confusing. | Government: Testimony provides context. | Granted: Testimony precluded as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. |
| Permitting general testimony on Fiscal Officer’s resignation | Government: Fiscal Officer should be able to mention resignation generally. | Rangott: Only the fact of resignation, not the reasons, should be admitted. | Fiscal Officer may testify she resigned, but not elaborate on reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999) (hearsay statements themselves may show conspiracy if corroborated)
- United States v. Persico, 832 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1987) (statements about co-conspirators' roles are in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2001) (statements informing others of conspiracy's status may be admissible)
- United States v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1991) (statements enforcing discipline or seeking assistance may further a conspiracy)
- United States v. Corey, 566 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1977) (testimony about unrelated conduct lacks probative value without close link to charged offenses)