United States v. Richard Mastrangelo

Second Circuit

United States v. Richard Mastrangelo

722 F.2d 13, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 847, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15529

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 1983

Docket140, Docket 82-1148

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 722 F.2d 13 (United States v. Richard Mastrangelo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Richard Mastrangelo, 722 F.2d 13, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 847, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15529 (2d Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Familiarity with our prior opinions, United States v. Mastrangelo, 662 F.2d 946 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 973, 102 S.Ct. 2236, 72 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982) and 693 F.2d 269 (2d Cir.1982), is assumed.

On remand after our most recent decision, 561 F.Supp. 1114, Judge McLaughlin held a hearing and found that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant had prior knowledge of the plot to kill James Bennett. Appellant concedes this finding is not clearly erroneous. He argues, however, that we should decline to follow our decision that prior knowledge and a failure to warn appropriate authorities is sufficient to constitute waiver of the right to confrontation and that such waiver need be shown by only a preponderance rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Judge McLaughlin found that the latter test had been satisfied but that the former had not been. We adhere to our prior opinion, which is also supported by Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1202-03 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1501-02, 75 L.Ed.2d 932 (1983).

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Familiarity with our prior opinions, United States v. Mastrangelo, 662 F.2d 946 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 973, 102 S.Ct. 2236, 72 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982) and 693 F.2d 269 (2d Cir.1982), is assumed.

On remand after our most recent decision, 561 F.Supp. 1114, Judge McLaughlin held a hearing and found that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant had prior knowledge of the plot to kill James Bennett. Appellant concedes this finding is not clearly erroneous. He argues, however, that we should decline to follow our decision that prior knowledge and a failure to warn appropriate authorities is sufficient to constitute waiver of the right to confrontation and that such waiver need be shown by only a preponderance rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Judge McLaughlin found that the latter test had been satisfied but that the former had not been. We adhere to our prior opinion, which is also supported by Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1202-03 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1501-02, 75 L.Ed.2d 932 (1983).

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 F.2d 13, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 847, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-mastrangelo-ca2-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack