United States v. Pacelli
491 F.2d 1108 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements or conduct by third parties that imply their belief in a defendant's guilt are inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove that guilt, as they deprive the defendant of the right to cross-examine the declarants. Additionally, the government's failure to disclose significant impeachment material regarding its key witness, as required by the Jencks Act, can constitute reversible error.
Facts:
- Patsy Parks testified before a federal grand jury regarding a box delivered to Vincent Pacelli, Jr., leading to a narcotics indictment against him.
- On February 3, 1972, federal agents attempted to serve a subpoena on Parks to compel her testimony at Pacelli's upcoming narcotics trial.
- Upon learning of the attempted service, Parks located Pacelli's associate, Barry Lipsky, and told him she urgently needed to speak with Pacelli about the subpoena.
- Lipsky relayed the message to Pacelli, who allegedly responded, "I know what I have to do."
- Later that night, Lipsky and Pacelli picked up Parks in Manhattan and drove her to Massapequa, Long Island.
- During the drive, Pacelli offered Parks money to leave the jurisdiction, which she refused.
- Upon arrival in Massapequa, Pacelli repeatedly stabbed Parks in the throat until she was dead.
- Pacelli and Lipsky then dumped Parks' body in a wooded area, poured gasoline on it, and set it on fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent Pacelli, Jr. was charged in a two-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Following a trial, a jury found Pacelli guilty on both counts.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Pacelli to life imprisonment on one count and a concurrent five-year term on the second count.
- Pacelli, as appellant, appealed the judgment 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 the admission of testimony regarding the out-of-court statements and conduct of a defendant's relatives and friends, which imply their belief that the defendant committed the crime, constitute prejudicial hearsay and reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield
Yes. The admission of this testimony was reversible error because it constituted prejudicial hearsay. Since the conspiracy to deprive Parks of her rights ended with her death, the statements of Pacelli's family and friends were not admissible under the co-conspirator exception. The government's explicit purpose for offering the testimony was to prove the declarants' belief in Pacelli's guilt, which is inadmissible hearsay under the principles of Krulewitch v. United States. This evidence violated the central purpose of the hearsay rule by denying Pacelli the opportunity to cross-examine the declarants about the source of their knowledge. The error was not harmless because the government's case relied entirely on the credibility of Lipsky, a highly impeachable witness, and this inadmissible evidence served to improperly corroborate his testimony. The government's additional failure to disclose a key letter from Lipsky under the Jencks Act also constituted reversible error, as it deprived the defense of powerful impeachment material.
Dissenting - Moore
No. The conviction should be affirmed because any error in admitting the testimony was harmless. The government's case rested on the eyewitness testimony of Barry Lipsky, and the jury, fully aware of his significant credibility issues, chose to believe him. The testimony about the family meeting added little to the case, as any implication of guilt was based on inference, not direct statements. Given the strength of Lipsky's detailed account of the murder, this minor evidentiary issue should not overturn the jury's verdict. Similarly, the failure to disclose the Jencks Act letter was harmless because defense counsel already possessed and used ample material to impeach Lipsky's credibility.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the exclusionary scope of the hearsay rule, extending the principles of Krulewitch v. United States to cover implied assertions of guilt. By finding reversible error, the court emphasized that a defendant's fundamental right to cross-examination cannot be circumvented by introducing third-party beliefs indirectly through their conduct or statements. The ruling serves as a strong caution against using such evidence to bolster the testimony of a weak or impeachable key witness. Furthermore, the court's separate finding of a Jencks Act violation underscores the prosecution's strict duty of disclosure, establishing that even an inadvertent failure to provide significant impeachment evidence can be grounds for a new trial.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Pacelli