United States v. Cosentino
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
844 F.2d 30 (1988)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A federal jury convicted Louis Cosentino (defendant) of extortion and use of United States mail to facilitate bribery. The prosecution’s (plaintiff) case at trial primarily relied on two private vendors, Alan Rappaport and Irving Eisenberg, who testified that they had been involved in a kickback scheme with Cosentino, a New York City Housing Authority employee. During opening arguments, the prosecutor stated that Rappaport and Eisenberg had entered plea agreements and pleaded guilty to felony charges, and Cosentino’s attorney contested that the plea agreements incentivized Rappaport and Eisenberg to give the government what it wanted in exchange for reduced charges. Cosentino’s attorney also noted that although Eisenberg had been sentenced, the government could reinstate Eisenberg’s original charges if Eisenberg did not fulfill Eisenberg’s side of the bargain. When Rappaport and Eisenberg testified, the prosecution offered the full text of each witness’s written cooperation agreement as evidence, and the trial court admitted the evidence over Cosentino’s objections. Cosentino appealed, arguing in part that the trial court had erred by admitting the cooperation agreements during Rappaport’s and Eisenberg’s direct testimonies because they improperly bolstered the witnesses’ testimonies.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Meskill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
