United States v. Thomas Vitrano
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6300
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Vitrano pled guilty over a decade ago to possessing a firearm as a felon and while under a domestic abuse injunction, and received a 30-year ACCA sentence due to prior felonies (escape, reckless endangerment).
- He later moved under §2255 (2008) seeking sentence reduction based on a forged discharge certificate that could purge a prior conviction for ACCA purposes; the certificate was provably fake.
- After the certificate was proven fake, the government charged perjury, attempting to corruptly influence official proceedings, and threatening a witness.
- At trial, Valona testified that Vitrano sent the forged certificate; phone calls from prison to Valona were admitted over Confrontation Clause objection.
- Vitrano argues the phone-call admissions violated the Confrontation Clause and that the chain-of-custody for the recordings was flawed; the district court admitted the calls, and the jury found Vitrano guilty on all counts.
- The Seventh Circuit AFFIRMED, holding no Confrontation Clause violation and a proper chain-of-custody foundation for the phone calls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability to admitted phone calls | Vitrano (plaintiff) argues the tester’s testimony was testimonial hearsay. | Vitrano contends the technician’s non-testimonial role requires cross-examination. | No Confrontation Clause violation; no testimonial hearsay requiring the technician’s presence. |
| Adequacy of chain-of-custody for phone-call exhibits | Vitrano argues improper chain of custody undermines admissibility. | Government showed custody through officers and agents with presumptions of regularity. | Chain of custody adequate; any gaps affect weight, not admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court, 2011) (testimony required for testimonial certificates)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court, 2006) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements framework)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 2004) (Confrontation Clause basics for testimonial statements)
- United States v. Collins, 715 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir., 2013) (chain-of-custody foundation considerations)