United States v. Paul Bergrin
682 F.3d 261
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Bergrin faced a multi-count Indictment including RICO, witness-tampering, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and tax evasion; Kemo McCray's murder counts carried a potential life sentence.
- The district court severed the Kemo murder counts for separate trial due to risk of prejudice from related evidence.
- The government sought to admit Rule 404(b) evidence (Pozo Plot and Esteves Plot) to prove Bergrin's intent; the court initially admitted Pozo but later excluded it and excluded Esteves entirely.
- After a mistrial on the Kemo counts, the government appealed the evidentiary rulings and the district court’s severance decisions; the court then ordered reassignment and a reconsideration path for the remaining counts.
- The Third Circuit vacated the exclusion of Pozo’s testimony, remanded for fresh Rule 403 balancing, and directed reassignment to a new judge; it left open the Esteves Plot ruling for afresh consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pozo evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b). | United States contends Pozo testimony is probative of Bergrin's intent. | Bergrin argues the court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence. | vacated; evidence allowed for fresh Rule 403 balancing before a new judge. |
| Whether the district court properly weighed Rule 403 balancing for Pozo and Esteves evidence. | Government argues probative value outweighs prejudice. | Bergrin argues district court misapplied 403 by discrediting credibility. | reassigned consideration; 403 balancing to be redone by the new judge. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in severing the Esteves/Pozo drug counts from the Kemo murder counts. | Government contends severance was appropriate to avoid prejudice. | Bergrin argues severance undermines RICO coherence and fair trial. | remanded; reassignment directs anew assessment of severance and admissibility. |
| Whether the case should be reassigned to a new judge for appearance-of-impartiality concerns. | Government seeks reassignment due to impartiality concerns. | Bergrin supports reassignment to ensure fair proceedings. | granted; case reassigned under 28 U.S.C. §2106 for fresh proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (standard for 404(b) evidence: sufficient basis for jury to find act occurred by preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Higdon, 638 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) (pendency of evidentiary rulings; appellate review limits)
- United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (appearance-of-impartiality reassignment standards under §2106)
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (law-of-the-case framework; sufficiency of indictment)
- United States v. Janati, 374 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2004) (appealability of oral district-court rulings under §3731)
- United States v. Flores, 538 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1976) (appealability of oral rulings excluding evidence under §3731)