U.S. v. Scop
| Citation | 856 F.2d 5 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 393,D,391,408 and 392,s. 393 |
| Parties | 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 275 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alan SCOP, Raphael Bloom, Herbert Stone and Jack Ringer, Defendants-Appellants. ockets 87-1255, 87-1261, 87-1262 and 87-1270. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Before PIERCE, WINTER and MINER, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
We grant rehearing in the instant case, as requested by defendants Raphael Bloom and Herbert Stone, to reconsider their convictions for perjury. Familiarity with our prior opinion, 846 F.2d 135 (2d Cir.1988), is assumed. In that decision, we reversed the conspiracy and mail and securities fraud convictions of defendants because the government's expert witness was wrongly allowed to give opinions that embodied legal conclusions and were based on that witness's assessment of the credibility of the testimony of other witnesses. However, we affirmed the convictions of defendants Bloom and Stone for perjury under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623 (1982), after determining that their challenges to those convictions were without merit.
Defendants' petitions for rehearing argue that the subject of the perjury was closely related to the subject of the improper opinion testimony and that the principal witness on the perjury count was the witness to whose credibility the government's expert witness had attested. We agree. The allegedly perjurious answers were to questions that used the term "manipulation," which was also used in the improper opinion testimony, and that involved the conduct of Sarcinelli, whose credibility was improperly bolstered by the expert.
Specifically, Bloom was charged with perjury based on the following grand jury testimony:
Q. Do you have any knowledge concerning Mr. Sarcinelli manipulating any of the stocks that were discussed here today?
The indictment maintains that the above statements were perjurious because:
[I]n truth and in fact, as defendant Bloom then well knew, during at least 1980 and 1981, he had participated in a scheme with defendant Sarcinelli and others to manipulate the price of European Auto common stock and had facilitated the matching of trades by defendant Sarcinelli.
Stone was accused of perjury on the basis of testimony similar to that of Bloom. Stone testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bilzerian
...law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it. See United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135, 139-40, modified, 856 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1988); Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510-11 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861, 98 S.Ct. 188, 54 L.Ed.2d 134 As a......
-
U.S. v. Ruggiero
...an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact." In United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135 (2d Cir.), rev'd in part on rehearing, 856 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1988), we reviewed and synthesized a number of our rulings in this area, taking into account also rule 704(a) and the advisory note thereto......
-
U.S. v. Sturman
... ... United State v ... Page 1480 ... Scop, 846 F.2d 135, 142, modified on reh'g, 856 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1988). Agent Morrow, using charts, summarized the evidence and testified that the ... ...
-
U.S. v. Stewart
...704 "was not intended to allow experts to offer opinions embodying legal conclusions"), rev'd in part on reh'g on other grounds, 856 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1988). In addition, the expert's opinion that Stewart's conduct did not violate the securities laws would have increased the potential for conf......