United States v. Bagaric
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
706 F.2d 42 (1983)
- Written by Christine Raino, JD
Facts
The United States (US) (plaintiff) charged Vinko Logarusic (defendant) with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). At his trial, the US introduced a writing into evidence that the US claimed was a letter to Logarusic from Miro Baresic, an unindicted co-racketeer. The letter was discovered during a search of Logarusic’s home after his arrest and was addressed to Logarusic. The letter concluded with “your Miro Baresic…your Miro Toni,” referencing an alias Baresic had used for immigration purposes and the letter had a postmark from Asuncion, Paraguay, which is where Baresic lived. The content of the letter referred to “our people in Chicago,” where Logarusic’s co-defendants lived, Mercedes, a friend of Logarusic and Logarusic’s landlord. Additionally, the letter’s author stated that “[t]he Swedes, Americans, and Yugoslavs are requesting expulsion because I am a terrorist and dangerous.” Testimony at trial revealed that Baresic was sought by Sweden for the murder of the Yugoslavian ambassador. Logarusic was convicted and appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, claiming that letter was not properly authenticated for admission into evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaufman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.