United States v. O'Connor
650 F.3d 839
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendants Linda O'Connor and Dean Sacco were tried in the Second Circuit for sex trafficking of a child and related offenses involving S.O., the 12-year-old daughter of O'Connor; trial evidence included S.O.'s testimony, witness testimony, and Sacco's prior child-sex-related history.
- O'Connor allegedly assisted Sacco in producing child pornography and allowed Sacco to abuse S.O. in Norwich, NY, including 2006 incidents at 45 Fair Street.
- S.O. testified to abuse by O'Connor, George Lang, Sacco, and two strangers; a later incident involved Sacco filming abuse with a camera; a used condom with S.O.'s DNA was found in Sacco's storage.
- Sacco faced counts including purchase of a child for production of pornography, coercion of a minor, interstate travel for illicit sexual conduct, and possession of child pornography; O'Connor faced counts including selling a child for pornography, trafficking, and permitting production.
- Pretrial issues included Sacco's attorney's motion to withdraw (denied), and O'Connor's severance motions (denied); trial proceeded jointly with the court providing limiting instructions.
- The jury convicted Sacco on all counts and O'Connor on three of five counts; sentences were life for Sacco and 30 years for O'Connor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of Sacco's counsel | Sacco argues counsel's withdrawal was compelled by ethical conflicts | Court acted within discretion; no actual conflict shown | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether admission of Sacco's autobiographical excerpts violated Rule 403 | Excerpts contain relevant pattern of predilections | Excerpts remote in time but probative; not unfairly prejudicial | Proper under 403; not abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial of continuance after surprise witness testimony offended due process | Need longer delay to investigate new witness | No substantial impairment; brief adjournment sufficient | No due process violation; continuance denial affirmed |
| Whether evidence sufficed to convict O'Connor on Counts 1, 3, 5 | Evidence showed knowledge, intent, and acts tying O'Connor to offenses | Argues inconsistencies and credibility undermine proof | Sufficient evidence for all challenged counts; convictions affirmed |
| Whether joint trial with Sacco prejudiced O'Connor | Joint trial inherently prejudicial given Sacco's conduct | Instructions mitigated spillover; defenses not mutually exclusive | Joint trial proper; no reversible prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (preference for joint trials; limited prejudice mitigated by instructions)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (continuance decisions within trial court discretion)
- Carson, 702 F.2d 351 (2d Cir. 1983) (review of sufficiency of evidence and credibility decisions)
- Losada, 674 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1982) (whether severance required when co-defendants' defenses antagonistic)
- Bari, 750 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1984) (severance considerations; trial fairness and prejudice)