Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Spinelli v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureBradyGiglioperjuryprosecutorial misconductsentencingBrady materialityGiglio impeachment

Facts

The government proved that members of the Luchese crime family decided to kill Patricia Capozzalo to intimidate her brother, Peter Chiodo, from testifying, and that Richard Pagliarulo put Spinelli in charge of planning the murder, with Dino Basciano as shooter. On the day of the attempt, Spinelli blocked Capozzalo's car with his van while Basciano shot at her, wounding her but not killing her. At trial, Basciano gave a detailed eyewitness co-conspirator account, and Gioia testified that Spinelli later described his role in prison conversations. After trial, the government disclosed that Gioia had violated his cooperation agreement by concealing information from federal authorities, material that had not been disclosed to the defense before trial.

Issue

Whether Spinelli was entitled to a new trial because the government failed to disclose impeachment material about Gioia, allegedly used Gioia's perjured testimony, and committed other misconduct at trial. The court also considered whether resentencing was required because of an inadequately supported Guidelines enhancement and in light of Booker and Crosby.

Rule

Under Brady and Giglio, suppressed favorable evidence warrants a new trial only if it is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed, the result would have been different or confidence in the verdict would be undermined. When the prosecution knowingly uses perjured testimony, vacatur is required only if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment. A defendant who testifies waives the Fifth Amendment privilege as to questions within the proper scope of cross-examination, and claims of improper summation are assessed in context by considering the severity of misconduct, curative measures, and the certainty of conviction absent the misconduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal extortion trial in Newark, cooperating witness Luis Moreno testified that Devon Pike admitted directing the scheme. On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited that Moreno had committed robberies, sold drugs, assaulted debtors, and lied repeatedly to agents after signing his cooperation agreement. After conviction, prosecutors disclosed that Moreno had also hidden an unrelated burglary from them during cooperation.

Is Pike most likely entitled to a new trial based on the nondisclosure?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, suppressed impeachment evidence warrants a new trial only if it is material—meaning there is a reasonable probability of a different result or that confidence in the verdict is undermined. Where the witness was already heavily impeached and the new information is cumulative, the additional material is not material. That is especially true when the withheld information does not contradict the witness's account of the defendant's conduct. (Derived from Spinelli v. United States (n.d.).)