U.S. v. Dipietro

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ANGELO DIPIETRO ET. AL., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: May 12, 2005

S5 02 Cr. 1237 (SWK) (S.D.N.Y. May. 12, 2005)

Opinion

S5 02 Cr. 1237 (SWK).

May 12, 2005

OPINION AND ORDER

SHIRLEY KRAM, Senior District Judge

Defendants Pizzuti, Genua and Bringman seek to solicit testimony regarding statements by non-party John Perazzo contained within a report of Senior Investigator Steven Hegarty. The statements are inadmissible. Even if the report of Investigator Hegarty is admissible as a business record or public record, which the Court does not decide, statements of a non-party within that report are clearly inadmissible hearsay.¹

1 The cases cited by Defendant Pizzuti in support of introducing Perazzo's statements provide no legal basis for admission.

Defendant Capalbo also seeks to introduce one thousand nine hundred and thirteen audiotapes from wiretaps on the phones Defendant Michael Pizzuti and non-party John Perazzo. As support for the introduction of these tapes, defendant relies on Federal Rule of Evidence ("F.R.E.") 106. The application is without merit, as neither F.R.E. 106, nor any other evidentiary rule for that matter, provides any basis for introduction of the tapes.

SO ORDERED.