United States v. Perrotta

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Perrotta. Read the opinion of the Court — 42 F.3d 702
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided December 27, 1994·No. 93-2357·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 93-2357
No. 93-2383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

PASQUALE PERROTTA,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,

Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Charles K. Stephenson with whom Richard L. Goldman was on brief ______________________ ___________________
for appellant.
Kevin O'Regan, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom ______________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for the United _______________
States.

____________________

December 27, 1994
____________________

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Pasquale Perrotta was indicted _____________

for participating in a large-scale narcotics conspiracy, 21

U.S.C. 841, 846, and for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine on a specific date. 21 U.S.C. 841. In

1990, Perrotta was tried, with 12 co-defendants, and was

convicted on both the conspiracy and possession counts. We

resolved the appeals of a number of Perrotta's co-defendants

in United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456 (1st Cir.), ______________ __________

cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 409, 114 S. Ct. 459 (1993), 114 S. ____________

Ct. 1072, 114 S. Ct. 1073 (1994).

Perrotta's sentencing occurred on December 7, 1993. The

delay is presumably related to the government's willingness,

at sentencing, to move for a downward departure under

U.S.S.G. 5K1.1. The court computed the guideline range as

providing for 97 to 121 months of imprisonment but, approving

a downward departure, the court sentenced Perrotta to 60

months in prison, with three years' supervised release to

follow. Perrotta has now appealed.

Perrotta's first point concerns the unusual action of

the government in making a post-trial submission to the

district court, neither the contents nor the existence of the

submission being known to the defendants at the time. See ___

Innamorati, 996 F.2d at 487. The government, in addition to __________

providing reasons for its secrecy, asked the district court

to determine whether the information fell under the Brady _____

-2- -2-

doctrine and had to be disclosed to the defense. Id. In the ___

course of the Innamorati appeals, this court ordered that the __________

existence of the government's submission and the relief

sought be disclosed to the defense while the contents

remained impounded. Id. ___

This court eventually sustained the convictions in

Innamorati. We agreed that secret submissions are dangerous __________

and are to be discouraged; but we found, after a review of

the actual submission, that there had been an adequate basis

for filing the submission in the district court under seal

and without notice to defense counsel; that there was

adequate cause to continue the impoundment of the submission

(even though the existence of the submission might now be

made known); and that the contents of the submission either

did not constitute Brady material or could not conceivably _____

have affected the outcome of the case. 996 F.2d at 487-88.

Perrotta does not seek to relitigate the legal rulings

just described but makes two narrower claims concerning the

disclosed material. First, he suggests that since more time

has now elapsed since the original submission, it must now be

safe to have the contents of the submission disclosed, so

that Perrotta's defense counsel can make his own judgment and

argue more effectively that the material could constitute a

prejudicial withholding of Brady information. Alternatively, _____

Perrotta speculates as to what the withheld submission might

-3- -3-

contain and suggests that the material has a special bearing

as to him that may not have been true of his co-defendants.

The contents of the government's original submission

have again been reviewed by this court. We remain of the

view that the government's reasons for not disclosing the

contents of the material remain valid, despite the passage of

additional time. And having considered Perrotta's suggestion

that the material may be specially pertinent to him, the

government's submission has been re-examined in that light,

but with no difference in result: there has been no

withholding from Perrotta of Brady material that could have _____

altered the result in his case.

Perrotta's second claim of error relates to his

sentencing. The amount of drugs attributed to Perrotta was

stipulated but, in calculating this guideline range, a

dispute arose concerning his criminal history based on the

following events. Perrotta had been convicted and sentenced

in 1976 for a gambling offense, but the conviction had been

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

United States v. Perrotta, (1st Cir. 1994).

United States v. Perrotta (United States v. Perrotta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related