United States v. Caputo, Fiore, A/K/A "Curly". Appeal of Fiore Caputo

Third Circuit

United States v. Caputo, Fiore, A/K/A "Curly". Appeal of Fiore Caputo

791 F.2d 37, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25479

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1986

Docket82-1791

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 791 F.2d 37 (United States v. Caputo, Fiore, A/K/A "Curly". Appeal of Fiore Caputo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Caputo, Fiore, A/K/A "Curly". Appeal of Fiore Caputo, 791 F.2d 37, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25479 (3d Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

791 F.2d 37, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-caputo-fiore-aka-curly-appeal-of-fiore-caputo-ca3-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack