United States of America v. Lawrence A. Hogan and Leonard J. Patricelli
712 F.2d 757 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An indictment may be dismissed under a court's supervisory power when the cumulative effect of a prosecutor's misconduct, including using inflammatory language, introducing highly prejudicial hearsay about uncharged crimes, and presenting false or misleading testimony, fundamentally impairs the grand jury's independent role as a shield against unfounded prosecution.
Facts:
- Lawrence A. Hogan, a retired police lieutenant, and his associate, Leonard J. Patricelli, were involved in a dispute with Martin 'Yogi' Ruggieri, who allegedly owed Hogan $20,000.
- Ruggieri persuaded Hogan and Patricelli to travel to a hotel in Rye, New York, for the purported purpose of collecting the debt.
- Upon their arrival, Rye police, acting at the request of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), stopped and questioned Hogan and Patricelli about a narcotics transaction before releasing them.
- Subsequently, an undercover DEA agent, Alieva, met with Hogan and offered to sell him heroin at a discount in exchange for forgiveness of Ruggieri's debt.
- Hogan, Patricelli, and Agent Alieva engaged in a series of meetings and phone calls over several weeks to discuss the proposed drug deal.
- Hogan ultimately terminated his involvement, stating that participating in a heroin deal was against everything he had ever believed in.
- After Hogan backed out, Agent Alieva threatened him with bodily harm if he did not proceed with the transaction.
- In a later recorded conversation with Ruggieri, Hogan reiterated that he could not get involved in distributing heroin.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the District of Connecticut indicted Lawrence A. Hogan and Leonard J. Patricelli for conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute, and Hogan on additional telephone facilitation counts.
- Before trial, the defendants moved in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss.
- Following a nine-day jury trial, both defendants were convicted of the conspiracy count, and Hogan was convicted on three of the telephone facilitation counts.
- The district court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced the defendants.
- Hogan and Patricelli, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 prosecutor's cumulative misconduct before a grand jury, including using inflammatory language, presenting false testimony, and introducing extensive prejudicial hearsay about uncharged crimes, warrant dismissal of the indictment under the court's supervisory power, even after a subsequent conviction at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, Circuit Judge
Yes, such misconduct warrants dismissal. A court may exercise its supervisory power to dismiss an indictment not only to eliminate prejudice to a defendant, but also to prevent the prosecutorial impairment of the grand jury's independent role. The court found the prosecutor's conduct here to be 'flagrant and unconscionable,' fundamentally compromising the grand jury's function as a shield between the citizen and the state. The prosecutor called Hogan a 'real hoodlum' who should be indicted as a 'matter of equity,' introduced extensive and inflammatory hearsay about Hogan being a 'suspect' in unrelated murders and police corruption, and elicited speculative testimony about why Hogan withdrew from the deal. Furthermore, DEA agents provided false and misleading testimony regarding Hogan's predisposition to commit the crime, including falsely denying the DEA's role in the initial Rye incident and misstating key details of the proposed drug deal. The cumulative effect of this misconduct deceived the grand jury and usurped its independent role, justifying dismissal of the indictment even after a conviction.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's supervisory power over federal grand jury proceedings as a check on prosecutorial overreach. It establishes that a conviction at trial does not automatically render harmless egregious prosecutorial misconduct that fundamentally undermines the grand jury's independence. By focusing on the impairment of the grand jury's institutional role, rather than just prejudice to the defendant, the case sets a precedent for dismissing indictments even in the absence of a showing that the grand jury would have decided differently. This ruling serves as a significant warning to prosecutors that tactics aimed at inflaming the grand jury or presenting a misleading case can have severe consequences, including the nullification of a subsequent conviction.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Lawrence A. Hogan and Leonard J. Patricelli