United States v. Salerno
952 F.2d 623
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 6, 1991·No. Docket Nos. 88-1464, 88-1470 to 88-1474, 88-1477, 88-1547, 90-1291, 90-1292, 90-1296, 90-1297, 90-1301, 90-1311, 90-1312 and 90-1351·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the last sentence of Part IIIA2a of the opinion in this case, now published at 937 F.2d 797, 805, is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Thus, in interpreting Rule 804(b)(1) and particularly the condition attached to that rule requiring a “similar motive” to develop the prior testimony, we view the testimony of Bruno and DeMatteis as available to the government but unavailable to the defendants. It goes without saying, of course, that we have not considered in this case, because the issue is not before us, whether the government’s power to grant immunity would affect a declarant’s “availability” under any of the other subdivisions of Rule 804(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Salerno, 952 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1991).
952 F.2d 623 (United States v. Salerno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Vincent Dinapoli, Louis Dinapoli, Nicholas Auletta, Edward Halloran, Aniello Migliore, and Alvin O. Chattin
8 F.3d 909 (Second Circuit, 1993)
Hunt v. State
613 So. 2d 893 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
United States v. Sher Malik Bahadar
954 F.2d 821 (Second Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Salerno
952 F.2d 623 (Second Circuit, 1991)