United States v. DiNapoli
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
8 F.3d 909 (1993)
Six concrete construction companies (defendants) were accused of bid-rigging in the bids for concrete superstructure work in New York City between 1980 and 1985. A grand jury investigating the matter returned indictments of all six defendants on March 20, 1986 on RICO charges. The grand jury continued the investigation to identify additional defendants and additional projects that may have been subject to bid-rigging. In this phase of the investigation, the grand jury called Frederick DeMatteis and Pasquale Bruno as witnesses. DeMatteis testified on three occasions and denied awareness of the bid-rigging scheme. The prosecutor was skeptical of the denials and asked DeMatteis a few questions in the nature of cross-examination, but in order not to reveal the names of undisclosed cooperating witnesses or the existence of undisclosed wiretapped conversations, did not reveal evidence that refuted DeMatteis’s denials. Bruno testified once before the grand jury. Bruno also denied awareness of the bid-rigging scheme. After a break, Bruno was told by the prosecutor that the grand jury was concerned that his testimony had not been truthful. The prosecution also did not counter Bruno’s testimony with evidence that would have revealed the names of undisclosed cooperating witnesses or the existence of undisclosed wiretapped conversations. At trial, the defendants attempted to call both DeMatteis and Bruno, who both invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The defendants then offered DeMatteis’s and Bruno’s grand jury testimony under Federal Rule 804(b)(1). The district court ruled it inadmissible. The defendants were convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 705,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 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.