U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1991

United States v. Salerno

United States v. Salerno
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided November 6, 1991 · Altimari, Miner, Pratt
952 F.2d 623 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Alan M. Cohen, Mark R. Hellerer, Asst. U.S. Attys., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., Jonathan Leib-man, Daniel Nardello, Cathy Seibel, Daniel C. Richman, Asst. U.S. Attys., S.D.N.Y., of counsel), for appellee., Jay Goldberg, New York City (Judd Bur-stein, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Matthew Ianniello., Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex. (Newman & Schwartz, Gustave H. Newman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Vincent Di Napoli., Robert L. Ellis, New York City, for defendant-appellant Louis Di Napoli., Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D.C. (Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Stephen L. Braga, Edith R. Lampson, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Nicholas Auletta., Frederick P. Hafetz, New York City (Goldman & Hafetz, Susan R. Necheles, Christy & Viener, Arthur H. Christy, Maria T. Galeno, New York City, Toll, Ebby, Lan-ger & Marvin, Peter F. Marvin, Philadelphia, Pa., Jeremy Gutman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Edward J. Halloran., Walter P. Loughlin, New York City, for defendant-appellant Aniello Migliore., Judd Burstein, New York City (John Jacobs, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Anthony Salerno., Patrick M. Wall, New York City, for defendant-appellant Alvin 0. Chattin.

United States v. Salerno

Opinion of the Court

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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.