United States v. Frederick Tropeano, and Marlon Tropeano, David Barroso, Jr.

Rule of Law:

A co-defendant's statement during a plea allocution, prompted by a government request, that does not further subject the declarant to criminal liability but is useful to the prosecution of another defendant, is not a statement against penal interest under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) because it lacks sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

Facts:

• David Barroso, Marlon Tropeano, and Frederick Tropeano were employees at a brokerage firm.
• They conspired to defraud four of the firm's customers by using forged documents to transfer customer accounts to other brokerage firms without the customers' knowledge.
• Once the accounts were transferred, the conspirators liquidated the accounts and took the proceeds.
• Barroso was recorded on audiotapes urgently requesting the liquidation of the transferred accounts.
• In one recorded conversation, Barroso falsely claimed to know an account owner and to be friends with the owner's non-existent son to establish his authority over the account.
• The actual account owner later testified that he had no sons and had never met Barroso.
• Barroso also endorsed a check drawn from one of the fraudulently transferred accounts.

Procedural Posture:

• Marlon and Frederick Tropeano pleaded guilty prior to trial.
• David Barroso was tried by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• At trial, the district court admitted into evidence a portion of Marlon Tropeano's plea allocution in which he stated he conspired with 'more than one person'.
• The jury convicted Barroso of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud.
• Barroso filed a post-conviction motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, arguing the admission of the allocution statement was improper.
• The district court denied the motion.
• Barroso (appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.