594 F. App'x 705
2d Cir.2014Background
- The Mazza defendants appealed judgments from 2013 after a 2012 jury verdict finding conspiracy to violate CERCLA, a substantive CERCLA violation, false statements, and obstruction of justice.
- The district court’s jury instruction stated the defendant had an interest in the outcome creating a motive to testify falsely, which the panel deemed improper.
- The panel vacated convictions for conspiracy (Count 1) and false statements (Count 7) as plain error but affirmed the CERCLA substantive (Count 2) and obstruction (Count 5) convictions.
- The court held the erroneous instruction prejudiced on Counts 1 and 7 under Marcus and Brutus standards, and vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing.
- The Mazza appeals were consolidated with United States v. Nicastro, with Mazza designated the lead case; the decision emphasizes corrective remedies rather than overall guilt.
- The court criticized prosecutorial conduct during cross-examination as improper but did not reverse on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the defendant-interest jury instruction plain error? | Mazza argues error mandating reversal. | Mazza argues instruction was improper under Brutus/Gaines. | Yes; instruction was clearly erroneous and prejudicial. |
| Did the error prejudice the false statements count? | Mazza asserts lack of knowledge element undermines credibility impact. | Mazza's credibility was crucial to that count. | Prejudicial; vacate Count 7. |
| Did the error prejudice the conspiracy count? | Mazza contends insufficient inference to prove tacit agreement. | Mazza testified about issues relevant to conspiracy. | Prejudicial; vacate Count 1. |
| Did the error affect the CERCLA substantive and obstruction counts? | Not challenged as to those counts. | Evidence supported those convictions independent of the instruction. | No prejudicial effect; Counts 2 and 5 affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaines, 457 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2006) (motive-to-lie instruction undermines presumption of innocence)
- United States v. Brutus, 505 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2007) (instruction creating motive to lie impermissibly undermines innocence; permissible alternatives exist)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain-error standard requires prejudice to substantial rights)