AROCENA

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1988)
  …rnment’s conduct, cf. United States ex rel. Jones v. DeRobertis, 766 F. 2d 270, 274-75 (7th Cir.1985) (witness apparently thought that petitioner’s claim was meritless and “feared prosecution for perjury”), cert. denied sub nom. Jones v. DeRobertis, 475 U.S. 1053, 106 S.Ct. 1280, 89 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986). Because the existence of substantial interference is a factual question, we may reverse the trial court’s decision only if it is “clearly erroneous.” Little, 753 F. 2d at 1439. Not surprisingly, the parties…
• United States v. Grossman, 843 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1988)
  …e might have thought that it was either public or not material. Grossman, however, did not object to the jury charge. Absent “plain error”, therefore, he has waived this claim. United States v. Arocena, 778 F. 2d 943, 948 (2 Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1053 (1986); Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, 52(b). We hold that the district court was not required to charge the jury on Grossman’s specific knowledge of the confidentiality policy; and that, even if the court had so charged, the jury was unlikely to have accepted…
• United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1992)
  …ess agreement; it is enough that the parties have a tacit understanding to carry out the prohibited conduct.’ ” United States v. Rubin, 844 F. 2d 979, 984 (2d Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Wardy, 111 F. 2d 101, 107 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1053, 106 S.Ct. 1280, 89 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986)). Finally, “ ‘[o]nce a conspiracy is shown to exist, the “evidence sufficient to link another defendant to it need not be overwhelming.” ’ ” United States v. Tuti-no, 883 F. 2d 1125, 1129 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting…