United States v. DiDomenico
78 F.3d 294 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the government provides affidavits denying involvement in an alleged Sixth Amendment violation, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce counter-affidavits or other evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. A defendant's failure to meet this burden, particularly after forgoing an initial opportunity for a hearing and being granted ample time to investigate, results in a forfeiture of the claim to a hearing.
Facts:
- The twenty defendants were alleged members of the Ferriola Street Crew of the Chicago Outfit, a criminal enterprise.
- The defendants were charged with RICO violations, including extortion, bribery, and the murder of bookmaker Hal Smith.
- While detained awaiting trial at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), the defendants used a designated room to meet with their lawyers.
- An unknown party made a tape recording of a conversation between one defendant and his lawyer in that room.
- The tape was anonymously mailed to the lawyer, who then turned it over to the government.
Procedural Posture:
- Twenty defendants were indicted in the U.S. District Court on RICO and other federal charges.
- During pre-trial detention, the defendants learned of the bugging of their meeting room and alleged a Sixth Amendment violation.
- The district judge offered the defendants an evidentiary hearing on the matter before trial.
- At the defendants' request, the hearing was repeatedly postponed to allow them time to investigate.
- The government submitted affidavits from all members of the prosecution team attesting to their lack of complicity in or knowledge of the bugging.
- After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the defendants formally moved for an evidentiary hearing.
- The district court, after reviewing an in camera FBI report on the incident, denied the defendants' motion.
- Following their convictions and sentencing, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by denying a post-verdict motion for an evidentiary hearing on a potential Sixth Amendment violation where the government submitted affidavits denying complicity in bugging an attorney-client meeting room and the defendants, after repeatedly postponing an initially offered hearing, failed to produce any counter-evidence of government involvement?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge.
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order an evidentiary hearing. By analogy to the rules for summary judgment, when the government supported its opposition to a hearing with affidavits from the prosecution team denying any involvement in the bugging, the burden shifted to the defendants to produce their own evidence creating a genuine issue of fact. The defendants failed to meet this burden despite being granted extensive time and resources to investigate. They had a right to a hearing, which the judge initially offered, but they chose to postpone it repeatedly, gambling that their investigation would produce evidence; when it did not, they were bound by that tactical decision and forfeited their claim to a hearing.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant procedural hurdle for defendants claiming Sixth Amendment violations based on government intrusion. By analogizing the standard for granting an evidentiary hearing to the standard for summary judgment, the court requires more than mere speculation of government misconduct. It places a clear evidentiary burden on the defense to counter the government's sworn denials, effectively preventing defendants from using unsubstantiated claims to compel extensive judicial inquiries or delay proceedings. This ruling reinforces the principle that while the right to counsel is fundamental, remedies for alleged violations require a concrete showing of a triable issue of fact.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. DiDomenico