From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Caputo

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 22, 1986
791 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1986)

Opinion

No. 82-1791.

May 22, 1986.

Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., U.S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr. and Glenn B. Bronson, Asst. U.S. Attys., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Betty A. Lawler, Bala Cynwyd, Pa., for appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.


OPINION ON PANEL REHEARING


OPINION OF THE COURT


Appellant Fiore Caputo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the district court erroneously admitted the out-of-court statements of nontestifying coconspirators, who had not been shown to be unavailable for cross-examination in court, as substantive evidence against the accused. United States v. Caputo, 758 F.2d 944 (3d Cir. 1985). On May 6, 1985, the government petitioned for rehearing by this panel. Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures chap. 9(B).

Because our original opinion in this case was based on our interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, U.S. Const. amend. VI, and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), as announced in United States v. Inadi, 748 F.2d 812 (3d Cir. 1984), we stayed consideration of this petition for panel rehearing pending Supreme Court review of Inadi On March 10, 1986, the Supreme Court reversed Inadi, holding that no showing of unavailability is required as a foundation for admitting the out-of-court statements of nontestifying coconspirators against the accused. United States v. Inadi, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1121, 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986). As a result, we will grant the petition for panel rehearing.

Only one contention raised by appellant was not addressed in our original opinion, i.e., that the coconspirator statements were inadmissible because they lacked adequate "indicia of reliability." See United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936, 104 S.Ct. 344, 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983). We have reviewed the record in light of Ammar, and find no merit in appellant's contention. Accordingly, we will vacate our previous judgment of March 29, 1985, and affirm the judgment of conviction. The mandate shall issue forthwith.


Summaries of

United States v. Caputo

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 22, 1986
791 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1986)
Case details for

United States v. Caputo

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CAPUTO, FIORE, A/K/A "CURLY". APPEAL OF FIORE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: May 22, 1986

Citations

791 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

State v. Todd

In re L.Q., 227 N.J. Super. 41, 545 A.2d 792 (App.Div. 1988). See United States v. Caputo, 791 F.2d 37, 37 n.…

Lynch v. Government of Virgin Islands

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses…