12‐3786‐cr United States v. Fazio

1

2 In the 3 United States Court of Appeals 4 For the Second Circuit 5 ________ 6 7 AUGUST TERM, 2013 8 9 ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 10 DECIDED: OCTOBER 22, 2014 11 12 Nos. 12‐3786‐cr, 12‐3799‐cr, 12‐3874‐cr 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Appellee, 16 17 v. 18 19 ANTHONY FAZIO, SR., AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1, JOHN FAZIO, JR., 20 AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 3, ANTHONY FAZIO, JR., AKA SEALED 21 DEFENDANT 2, AKA ANTHONY FAZIO, ERNEST ORGEL 22 Defendants‐Appellants. 23 ________ 24 25 Before: WALKER, LEVAL, WESLEY, Circuit Judges. 26 ________ 27 28 Defendants appeal their convictions after a trial in the United 29 States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, 30 J.), on numerous grounds. Defendants were convicted of various 31 crimes, including extortion, associated with their receipt of allegedly 32 illegal labor payments. In this opinion we address the district court’s 33 (1) ruling that permitted evidence of defendants’ ties to organized 34 crime; (2) denial of a requested jury charge that the “fear” element of 2

1 extortion cannot be satisfied by a threat of loss of economic 2 advantage to which the victim was not legally entitled; and 3 (3) dismissal of a juror during the trial. We find no error in these 4 rulings and affirm the judgment of the district court. 5 We have considered all the remaining arguments raised by 6 defendants and find them to be without merit. 7 ________ 8 9 RICHARD WARE LEVITT, Levitt & Kaizer, New 10 York, NY, for Defendant‐Appellant Anthony Fazio, 11 Jr.

12 MARC FERNICH, New York, NY, for Defendant‐ 13 Appellant Anthony Fazio, Sr.

14 RONALD P. FISCHETTI, PHYLLIS A. MALGIERI, 15 Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, New York, NY, BARRY 16 A. BOHRER, ELI J. MARK, Schulte Roth & Zabel 17 LLP, New York, NY for Defendant‐Appellant John 18 Fazio, Jr.

19 20 CHI T. STEVE KWOK (Peter M. Skinner, Brian R. 21 Blais, Justin S. Weddle, on the brief), Assistant 22 United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United 23 States Attorney for the Southern District of New 24 York, New York, NY for Appellee.

25 ________ 26 27 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge:

28 Anthony Fazio, Sr. (“Fazio Senior”), Anthony Fazio, Jr. (“Fazio

29 Junior”), and John Fazio, Jr. (“John Fazio”), who were officers in

30 Local 348 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International

31 Union, demanded that business owners that employed Local 348 3

1 members make payments to the Fazios to ensure a good working

2 relationship with the union. At trial, the government produced

3 evidence from which the jury could conclude that the Fazios’

4 demands for money were accompanied by threats of economic and

5 physical harm. All three defendants were indicted for:

6 (1) racketeering conspiracy in violation of

(d);

7 (2) racketeering in violation of

(c); (3) extortion

8 conspiracy in violation of the Hobbs Act,

; and

9 (4) receiving unlawful labor payments in violation of 29 U.S.C.

10 § 186(b)(1), d(2). Fazio Senior and John Fazio were also indicted for

11 conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of the Hobbs

12 Act,

(h). Fazio Senior was additionally indicted for

13 witness tampering in violation of

(b)(1), (2). After a

14 jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District

15 of New York (Forrest, J.), each defendant was convicted of all of the

16 crimes with which he was charged. The district court sentenced

17 Fazio Senior, Fazio Junior, and John Fazio, respectively, to

18 imprisonment terms of 151 months, 60 months, and 135 months.

19 On appeal, the Fazios challenge their convictions on a variety

20 of grounds. In this opinion we address three errors appellants assert 4

1 were made by the district court: (1) the ruling admitting evidence of

2 defendants’ ties to organized crime; (2) the denial of a requested jury

3 charge that the “fear” element of extortion cannot be satisfied by a

4 threat of loss of economic advantage to which the victim was not

5 legally entitled; and (3) the dismissal during trial of a juror. For the

6 reasons stated below, we find no error and affirm the judgment of

7 the district court.

8 Defendants’ remaining arguments are without merit.

9 DISCUSSION

10 I. Background

11 From at least some time in 1989, up through and including

12 June 2011, the Fazios, who ran Local Union 348, participated in a

13 scheme to enrich themselves by extorting payments from business

14 owners whose employees were members of the local. At trial,

15 witnesses testified that either before or shortly after they entered

16 into a union contract with Local 348, one or more of the defendants

17 would tell them that, yearly, and sometimes twice yearly, side

18 payments to the Fazios would be required to ensure a good working

19 relationship. Because of the Fazios’ collusive relationship with the

20 employers with which they were supposed to be negotiating at 5

1 arm’s length, Local 348 had a reputation for being a “sweetheart”

2 union. However, the Fazios also cultivated a reputation that they

3 and Local 348 were connected to organized crime. And the Fazios

4 used implicit and explicit threats of economic and physical harm to

5 extort the side payments.

6 Witnesses testified that they felt that they had no choice but to

7 accede to the Fazios’ demands for money. For example, one

8 employer whose employees were members of Local 348, Leon

9 Hofman, testified that when he declined John Fazio’s demand for

10 around $7,500 to $10,000 per year, John Fazio stated something to

11 the effect of “don’t screw around with me.” Hofman testified that he

12 became worried about his and his family’s safety and started

13 making the payments. Another employer, Elliot Betesh, testified

14 about an incident where people were blocking trucks from

15 delivering merchandise to his warehouse. Betesh said that the group

16 blocking the delivery trucks left a card with Fazio Senior’s name on

17 it. Betesh said that the blockade ended after he agreed to a union

18 contract with Local 348 and a yearly side payment of $20,000 to

19 Fazio Senior. 6

1 The government also introduced evidence that Local 348 and

2 the Fazios had reputations for having ties to organized crime. For

3 example, employer Samuel Singer testified that he believed that

4 John Fazio was “connected to organized crime.” J.A. 239. Recorded

5 phone calls between Mark Cohen, an owner of the retail chain Shoe

6 Mania who did not testify at trial, and John Fazio (the “Shoe Mania

7 calls”) also suggested Local 348’s connection to organized crime. On

8 these calls the two men discussed installing Local 348 at Cohen’s

9 stores. Before one phone call was picked up by John Fazio, but after

10 the recording began, Cohen told his comptroller, Jimmy, why John

11 Fazio can solve his labor issues: “Mafia, Jimmy, Mafioso.” On

12 another call, Mark Cohen told John Fazio, “My attorney got your

13 stuff whatever and the lawyer, the lawyer said to my attorney; yeah,

14 ah, ah what’s with your union, the union that ah you’re trying to, ah,

15 what ah, you know, M‐O‐B, Mafia union . . . ” Appellee’s Br. 107; see

16 J.A. 541. John Fazio responded, “That’s what he said?” Cohen then

17 said, “Yeah, something like that.” Fazio responded, “Yeah.”

18 Each defendant called a single character witness and offered

19 documentary records into evidence. After one day of deliberations, 7

1 the jury found each defendant guilty of all counts in which he was

2 charged.

3 II. Evidence of Defendants’ Alleged Connection to the Mafia

4 Prior to trial, the government moved in limine for a ruling

5 admitting testimony by victims that they believed that the Fazios

6 were connected to organized crime. In response, Fazio Junior moved

7 in the alternative either to preclude such evidence on basis that there

8 was no showing that defendants were actually involved in

9 organized crime or, if the evidence was admitted, for a severance.

10 Fazio Junior also moved to exclude the recorded conversations

11 between Mark Cohen, the owner of Shoe Mania, and John Fazio. The

12 district court granted the government’s motion to admit the

13 proffered evidence of defendants’ alleged ties to organized crime

14 after concluding “that the state of mind of alleged victims of

15 extortion is directly at issue in this case.” J.A. 188. And the district

16 court held that severance was unwarranted because Fazio Junior

17 was charged with conspiring with his father and cousin and the

18 reputation of all three of having connections to the mafia was

19 relevant to the guilt of each defendant. J.A. 189 8

1 The district court also denied Fazio Junior’s motion to exclude

2 the Shoe Mania calls. The district court found that even though

3 Cohen was not a victim of the alleged extortion, Cohen “was

4 speaking directly to [the] reputation of the Fazios generally in

5 connection with Local 348.” J.A. 192. In addition, the district court

6 found that the Shoe Mania calls “follow a pattern similar to other

7 alleged conspiratorial behavior and related acts . . . [and] are

8 therefore relevant.” J.A. 198. At trial, the district court denied

9 reconsideration of the reputation evidence rulings.

10 On appeal, Defendants argue that admission of the reputation

11 evidence denied them a fair trial. They contend that the evidence

12 was not admissible because there was no proof that any of the

13 defendants were in fact connected to the mafia. In the alternative,

14 Fazio Junior argues that even if the organized crime evidence was

15 properly admitted, he should have been granted a severance

16 because the evidence unfairly prejudiced him.

17 A. Admissibility of evidence

18 We review a district court’s rulings on the admissibility of

19 trial evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Coplan,

(2d Cir. 2012). “A district court has abused its discretion if it 9

1 based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly

2 erroneous assessment of the evidence or rendered a decision that

3 cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re

4 Sims,

(2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks,

5 alterations and citations omitted).

6 The admissibility of the organized crime reputation evidence

7 is a function of the nature of the government’s required proof, which

8 goes to the fear reasonably experienced by the victims, an element of

9 extortion. Under the Hobbs Act, the government must prove that the

10 defendant “obtain[ed] . . . property from another . . . induced by

11 wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear,” 18

(b)(2). “[T]he defendant [must] knowingly and willfully

13 create[] or instill[] fear, or use[] or exploit[] existing fear with the

14 specific purpose of inducing another to part with property.” United

15 States v. Coppola,

(2d Cir. 2012). “Bad reputation is

16 relevant to the fear element in a Hobbs Act conspiracy ‘since such a

17 reputation frequently conveys a tacit threat of violence.’” United

18 States v. Mulder,

(2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States

19 v. Tropiano,

(2d Cir. 1969)). 10

1 Defendants argue that the reputation evidence at issue here is

2 inadmissible absent some corroborative evidence that defendants

3 were actually connected to organized crime or knowingly exploited

4 a reputation for such a connection. Defendants’ arguments are

5 without merit; the district court did not abuse its discretion in

6 admitting the proffered evidence that Fazio Senior, John Fazio, and

7 Local 348 were reputedly connected to organized crime.

8 First, after Mark Cohen alerted John Fazio that Local 348 had a

9 reputation in the community as a “mafia union,” John Fazio did

10 nothing to refute the allegation.1 By letting the assertion stand, John

11 Fazio effectively endorsed it and thus exploited it. And second,

12 whether the Fazios were actually connected to organized crime is

13 not dispositive of the admissibility of reputation evidence that tends

14 to show the reasonableness of the victims’ fear. The government

15 may use the evidence to demonstrate that a victim’s belief that the

16 Fazios were connected to organized crime was reasonable and that

17 the Fazios exploited this belief.

Indeed, he seemed to endorse it explicitly. When told by Cohen that 1

Cohen’s attorney learned from another attorney that the Union was Mob connected, John Fazio responded, “That’s what he said?” Cohen said “Yeah, something like that.” And Fazio responded “Yeah.” Appellee’s Br. 107. 11

1 B. Severance

2 A district court’s decision to deny severance is “virtually

3 unreviewable” and will be overturned only if a defendant can

4 demonstrate prejudice “so severe that his conviction constituted a

5 miscarriage of justice and that the denial of his motion constituted

6 an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Stewart,

, 314‐15

7 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

8 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 “permits the district court to

9 grant relief from potential prejudice when there is a serious risk that

10 a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the

11 defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment

12 about guilt or innocence.”

(internal quotation marks

13 omitted). The clear preference for joint trials, however, “is

14 particularly strong where, as here, the defendants are alleged to

15 have participated in a common plan or scheme.” United States v.

16 Salameh,

(2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

17 In the present case, Fazio Junior was alleged to have

18 participated with his father, Fazio Senior, and uncle, John Fazio, in a

19 common plan or scheme to which the reputation evidence was

20 relevant. All three defendants were tried for the same conspiracy. 12

1 Indeed, evidence of John Fazio’s organized crime reputation would

2 have been admitted against Fazio Junior had he been tried alone

3 given the nature and scope of the conspiracy. Whatever prejudice

4 there was to Fazio Junior was insufficiently severe to render the

5 district court’s decision an abuse of discretion or a miscarriage of

6 justice. Accordingly we affirm the decision of the district court

7 denying Fazio Junior’s motion to sever.

8

9 III. Jury Charge

10 We review de novo a properly preserved claim of error by the

11 district court in instructing the jury. United States v. Coplan,

. We are mindful, however, that “[t]he trial court ‘enjoys broad

13 discretion in crafting its instructions[,] which is only circumscribed

14 by the requirement that the charge be fair to both sides.’”

15 (quoting United States v. Brand,

(2d Cir. 2006)). “A

16 defendant challenging the district court’s rejection of his proposed

17 jury instruction ‘must show that his proposed charge accurately

18 represented the law in every respect, and that the charge actually

19 given, viewed as a whole, prejudiced him.’” United States v. Archer, 13

1

(2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Feliciano, 223

(2d Cir. 2000)).

3 The Hobbs Act defines extortion as “obtaining of property

4 from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or

5 threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” 18

(b)(2). The fear requirement may be satisfied by a fear

7 of economic loss. United States v. Capo,

(2d Cir.

8 1987) (en banc).

9 With respect to the fear element of extortion, the district court

10 instructed the jury as follows:

11 The second element [of extortion] is attaining property 12 through wrongful use of force, violence, or fear. The 13 second element the government must prove beyond a 14 reasonable doubt is that the defendant wrongfully took 15 this property by actual or threatened force, violence or 16 fear of injury or economic harm, whether immediately 17 or in the future. 18 19 . . . 20 21 The wrongful use of fear includes creating or instilling 22 fear. A wrongful use of fear may also occur when a 23 defendant is aware of the victim’s existing fear and does 24 or says something to exploit that fear. The fear can be a 25 fear of economic or physical injury. Economic fear is 26 only wrongful when it used to obtain property to which 27 the defendant has no lawful right. The existence of fear 14

1 must be determined by the facts existing at the time of 2 the defendant’s actions. 3 4 Any fear created or exploited in the course of an 5 extortion must be a reasonable fear. The fear of 6 economic loss must be a reasonable one. Reasonable 7 fear means that a reasonable person in the victim’s 8 position would experience similar fear. . . . 9 10 On appeal, the Fazios challenge the district court’s refusal to

11 grant the following jury instruction requested by Fazio Junior

12 pertaining to economic loss:

13 [H]owever, you may not find this element established if 14 the economic fear was fear that he would lose an 15 economic advantage to [which] she was not lawfully 16 entitled. Thus an employer’s fear that if they did not 17 make certain payments, a Local 348 official or the local 18 would not go easy on him is not sufficient to satisfy this 19 element. 20 21 J.A. 545. The district court denied the request.

22 In seeking the requested jury instruction, Fazio Junior relied

23 on United States v. Garcia,

(2d Cir. 1990), overruled on

24 other grounds by Griffin v. United States,

, 57 n.2 (1997), for

25 the proposition that extortion cannot be premised on the fear of loss

26 of an illegally obtained advantage. In Garcia, Congressman Garcia

27 wanted to have the victim company, Wedtech, hire his wife as a

28 public relations consultant in exchange for prospective political help 15

1 with government contracts. We concluded that “Garcia . . . was in

2 effect offering to sell his congressional power, but he was not using

3 that power as a way to intimidate Wedtech. By paying the Garcias,

4 Wedtech was purchasing an advocate, not buying off a thug.” 907

5 F.2d at 384. In Garcia, we reversed the extortion conviction because

6 “in making the payments, [Wedtech], was motivated by desire not

7 fear.” Id. at 385.

8 During our discussion over whether Wedtech was a victim of

9 economic extortion or rather a “shrewd, unethical business[],” we

10 observed that “Wedtech was not risking the loss of anything to

11 which it was legally entitled.” Id. at 384‐85. Fazio Junior, relying

12 upon this observation, argues that extortion cannot be premised on

13 the threatened loss of an advantage illegally obtained. Garcia,

14 however, did not create such a rule. The language to which Fazio

15 Junior points was dicta and unnecessary to our decision.

16 Moreover, Garcia is inapposite here. In Mulder,

,

17 decided a decade after Garcia, we upheld an extortion conviction in a

18 situation where a coalition of labor leaders “used threats of

19 slowdowns or work stoppages and sometimes relied on their

20 coalition’s reputation for violence to obtain no‐show jobs.” Mulder, 16

1

. We distinguished Mulder from Garcia on the basis that

2 the former “involve[d] a very different factual scenario. . . . Instead

3 of offering access to influence [like Congressman Garcia],

4 defendants [in Mulder] offered freedom from violence, property

5 damage, and costly shutdowns.”

.

6 If Fazio Junior had requested a jury instruction that refined

7 the distinction between a bribe to obtain a preferential treatment and

8 an extortion payment made out of fear of economic loss, there could

9 be no objection. But the requested instruction went further; it barred

10 jurors from finding the “fear” element of extortion unless the victim

11 feared losing an advantage to which he was legally entitled. This

12 requested instruction misstates the law. None of our precedents

13 require that the economic advantage that the victim fears losing to

14 have been legally obtained by the victim. Our cases require simply

15 that the victim be coerced into making the payments out of a

16 reasonable fear of economic harm. And our cases draw a distinction

17 between such payments and payments made, not out of fear of loss,

18 but to receive an advantage. The former payments are extorted; the

19 latter are bribes. Moreover, nothing in the language of the Hobbs 17

1 Act suggests that the fear of economic loss is somehow limited to the

2 fear of economic loss to which the victim is legally entitled.

3 The requested instruction is flawed for another reason. It is

4 ambiguous, and thus it is both confusing and fails to adequately

5 inform the jury on the law. Fazio Junior requested that the jury

6 instructions include: “Thus an employer’s fear that if [he] did not

7 make certain payments, a Local 348 official or the local would not go

8 easy on him is not sufficient to satisfy this element.” There are at

9 least two ways to read this language: (1) “not go easy” could mean

10 that the union would discontinue its sweetheart relationship; or (2)

11 “not go easy” could signal that the union would engage in abuses

12 and increase the costs of doing business beyond those related to the

13 loss of the sweetheart relationship. The ambiguity derives from the

14 phrase “not go easy” which, while it could simply mean cease its

15 practice of going easy, could also mean make it very difficult.

16 The phrase “not go easy” is even more ambiguous because

17 viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government, the

18 choice before the jury was not binary. A reasonable jury could find

19 that the victims’ payments were either (a) made to secure an

20 economic advantage (bribe), (b) made out of a reasonable fear of 18

1 economic loss (extortion), or (c) made both to secure an economic

2 advantage and out of fear that a failure to make the payments would

3 result in economic harm beyond any loss attributed to preferential

4 treatment. In Garcia, the choice was binary: “preferential treatment”

5 or not. The requested charge is flawed because it does not account

6 for scenario (c).

7 Introducing the concept of legal entitlement into the fear of

8 loss calculus is problematic for two further reasons. First, it bears no

9 relationship to the criminality of the defendant’s extortionate

10 conduct. The victim’s fear of losing something to which the victim

11 was not legally entitled may in some cases speak to the victim’s

12 conduct, but it does not speak to one’s view of the defendant’s

13 conduct or state of mind. Second, an inquiry into the legality of the

14 loss that is feared, invites a trial within a trial on that question. For

15 example, in a case where the economic loss feared is the loss of

16 proceeds of a line of credit based upon a questionable application, a

17 defendant could insist on a trial over the issue of whether the line of

18 credit was properly obtained. Such a mini trial would have its own

19 complications and, in any event, would be a distraction from the

20 main event―whether the evidence proves that the defendant, not 19

1 the victim, engaged in conduct that the criminal law proscribes as

2 extortion.

3 The district court instructed the jury that “the government

4 must prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant

5 wrongfully took this property by actual or threatened force, violence

6 or fear of injury or economic harm.” The district court also advised

7 the jury that the “fear of economic loss must be a reasonable one.”

8 The jury instruction neither “failed to inform the jury adequately of

9 the law” nor “misled the jury about the correct legal rule.” United

10 States v. White,

(2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

11 marks omitted). Fazio Junior’s requested jury instruction, in

12 contrast, did not “accurately represent[] the law in every respect.”

13 Coplan, 703 F.3d at 87 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we find that

14 the district court did not err in denying the requested jury

15 instruction.

16 IV. Dismissal of Juror No. 5

17 In the midst of the trial, the district court informed the parties

18 that Juror No. 9 had reported to the court’s deputy that Juror No. 5

19 had “professed love for defense counsel [and] said that she thought

20 that the government counsel was corrupt half the time.” The 20

1 following day, on May 2, 2012, the district court explained to the

2 parties that it planned to question Juror Nos. 9 and 5 with respect to

3 this communication. The Fazios objected to the district court’s plan

4 to question the two jurors and recommended instead that the district

5 court simply remind the jurors that they are not to discuss the case

6 or form opinions about guilt or innocence until deliberations. The

7 district court, however, proceeded to question Juror No. 5 and Juror

8 No. 9 individually. After somewhat extensive questioning, Juror No.

9 5 eventually conceded that she might have made the comments, but

10 did not remember. She assured the district court that she could keep

11 an open mind. Based on the “serious credibility issues” generated by

12 Juror No. 5’s inconsistent responses to the district court’s questions,

13 the government moved for Juror No. 5’s dismissal. After hearing

14 from all parties, the district court denied the motion.

15 Six days later, the government delivered its summation in

16 chief, followed by lengthy summations by Fazio Senior’s counsel

17 and Fazio Junior’s counsel. The jury was then excused for the day.

18 That night, in a letter to the district court, the government renewed

19 its motion to disqualify Juror No. 5. The government based its

20 motion on Juror No. 5’s conduct and responses during the May 2 21

1 inquiry and an additional alleged comment by Juror No. 5 to a

2 fellow juror regarding the summation by counsel for Fazio Junior

3 that the government overheard. The following morning the district

4 court, addressing all counsel, stated that it found “more than

5 sufficient reasonable cause to dismiss Juror No. 5” and dismissed

6 her. The district court added that it had observed Juror No. 5 smirk,

7 exchange knowing glances with Juror No. 4 during summation, and

8 roll her eyes when the court reiterated its instructions not to discuss

9 the case during breaks. The district court found that “[t]he

10 accumulation of all of these incidences [sic] raised serious concerns

11 . . . regarding . . . Juror No. 5’s veracity when she spoke to the Court

12 . . . and separately indicates a persistent and ongoing inability to

13 follow instructions.” The district court then asked counsel if they

14 would “like to say anything in response to what the Court has just

15 said.” The district court heard from each of the defense counsel who

16 objected to the decision to dismiss the juror. After hearing the

17 arguments, the district court “explain[ed] a little bit more” the basis

18 for excluding Juror No. 5 and reiterated that there was reasonable

19 cause for Juror No. 5’s dismissal. The district court then repeated

20 that the juror would be dismissed, which occurred. 22

1 District courts have broad discretion under Federal Rule of

2 Criminal Procedure 24(c) to replace a juror at any time before the

3 jury retires if the court finds that a juror is “unable . . . or . . .

4 disqualified to perform [her] duties.” Removal of a juror is the

5 “prerogative of the court and does not require the consent of any

6 party.” United States v. Floyd,

(2d Cir. 1974) (citing

7 United States v. Ellenbogen,

(2d Cir. 1966)).

8 Moreover, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require

9 any inquiry prior to the dismissal of a juror.

10 We have held that, “[a] reviewing court should not disturb the

11 trial judge’s exercise of discretion in dismissing a juror unless there

12 is a bias or prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Gambino, 951

(2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation

14 omitted). “Prejudice in this context exists when the discharge is

15 without factual support, or for a legally irrelevant reason.” United

16 States v. Purdy,

(2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation

17 marks and citations omitted).

18 Although it would have been better if the district court had

19 heard from the defense before rather than after announcing its

20 decision, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it 23

1 excused Juror No. 5. Based on its interactions with Juror No. 5, the

2 district court determined that the juror continued to violate the

3 instructions of the court such that the district court had reasonable

4 cause to believe that the juror could no longer serve according to her

5 oath. No further inquiries or hearings were required and nothing

6 done by the district court amounted to error.

7 ****

8 To recapitulate, we hold that the district court did not err by

9 (1) admitting evidence of witnesses’ beliefs that the Fazios were

10 connected to organized crime; (2) declining to give Fazio Junior’s

11 requested jury instructions; and (3) dismissing Juror No. 5. We have

12 considered all the remaining arguments raised by defendants and

13 find them to be without merit.

14 CONCLUSION

15 For the reasons set forth in this opinion the judgments of

16 conviction are affirmed.