Opinion
Criminal Action 21-CR-428 (SB)
10-24-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EMERSON PAVILUS Defendant.
Jordann R. Conaboy, Mark J. Pesce, Mark J. McCarren, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, Newark, New Jersey Counsel for the United States. A. Paul Condon, PAUL CONDON, ESQ., Jersey City, New Jersey Counsel for Defendant.
Jordann R. Conaboy, Mark J. Pesce, Mark J. McCarren, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, Newark, New Jersey Counsel for the United States.
A. Paul Condon, PAUL CONDON, ESQ., Jersey City, New Jersey Counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BIBAS, CIRCUIT JUDGE, sitting by designation.
A jury convicted Emerson Pavilus of conspiring to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiring to defraud the United States, and taking bribes. D.I. 80. He now asks for a new trial and for judgment of acquittal. I deny both motions.
First, Pavilus argues that his trial was tainted by co-conspirator statements that I admitted. D.I. 93 at 2-3. He says that at the close of evidence, to admit the statements, I had to state explicitly that there was a conspiracy. D.I. 93 at 2. Not so. District courts need not explicitly find that a conspiracy existed; “the court's decision to send the case to the jury” implies that it made that finding. United States v. Cruz, 910 F.2d 1072, 1081 n.11 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
At the pretrial conference, I conditionally admitted the co-conspirator statements over Pavilus's objection. D.I. 71 at 22-23 (tr. 22:20-23:3). I told Pavilus's attorney that he could “come back to me at the end of trial” to ask to exclude the evidence if no conspiracy existed. Id. at 22 (tr. 22:20-22, 23:4-20). He agreed. Id. (tr. 22:23). At trial, Pavilus objected again. D.I. 88 at 158 (tr. 331:7-8). But I reiterated that the statements were admissible unless I later found as a matter of law that there was not enough evidence to prove a conspiracy existed. Id. at 161 (tr. 334:8-17). And I issued a limiting instruction to the jury that the evidence would be admissible for its truth only if the government could prove that there was a conspiracy. Id. at 161-62 (tr. 335:13-17). Pavilus never came back to me to object to the conditional admission. Contrary to his argument that he and Flo talked only casually, the government introduced plenty of evidence of a conspiracy among Flo, Pavilus, and Bazile. D.I. 94 at 2-3. So I deny the motion for a new trial.
Second, Pavilus again asks me to enter judgment of acquittal. But he offers no new evidence, and there is enough evidence for a rational trier of fact to have convicted him. United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226, 238 (3d Cir. 2000). So I deny that motion too. D.I. 89 at 130 (tr. 602:6-9).