UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CAPUTO, FIORE, A/K/A "CURLY". APPEAL OF FIORE CAPUTO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Inadi eliminates the requirement to show unavailability for admitting coconspirator statements. The court also found the statements possessed adequate indicia of reliability.
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court previously reversed the conviction, finding coconspirator statements in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse U.S. Const. Amend. Vi cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Fiore Caputo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the district court erroneously admitted the out-of-court statements of nontestify-ing coconspirators, who had not been shown to be unavailable for cross-examination in court, as substantive evidence against the accused. United States v. Caputo, 758 F. 2d 944 (3d Cir.1985). On May 6, 1985, the government petitioned for rehearing by this panel. Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures chap. 9(B).
Because our original opinion in this case was based on our interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, U.S. Const, amend. VI, and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), as announced in United States v. Inadi, 748 F. 2d 812 (3d Cir.1984), we stayed consideration of this petition for panel rehearing pending Supreme Court review of Inadi. On March 10, 1986, the Supreme Court reversed Inadi, holding that no showing of unavailability is required as a foundation for admitting the out-of-court statements of nontestifying coconspirators against the accused. United States v. Inadi, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1121, 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986). As a result, we will grant the petition for panel rehearing.
Only one contention raised by appellant was not addressed in our original opinion, i.e., that the coconspirator statements were inadmissible because they lacked adequate “indicia of reliability.” See United States v. Ammar, 714 F. 2d 238 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936, 104 S.Ct. 344, 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983). We have reviewed the record in light of Ammar, and find no merit in appellant’s contention. Accordingly, we will vacate our previous judgment of March 29,1985, and affirm the judgment of conviction. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1986)
- United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983)
- PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 464 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1983)
- Parrott v. Wilson, 464 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Inadi, 748 F.2d 812 (3d Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Caputo, 758 F.2d 944 (3d Cir. 1985)