United States v. Dovico

• Decision Date: 19 June 1967
• Docket Number: Docket 30958.,No. 455,455
• Citation: 380 F.2d 325
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alfred DOVICO, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

380 F.2d 325 (1967)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Alfred DOVICO, Appellant.

No. 455, Docket 30958.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1967.

Decided June 19, 1967.

Certiorari Denied November 6, 1967.

F. Lee Bailey, Boston, Mass. (Alan Dershowitz, Cambridge, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.

Michael S. Fawer, Asst. U. S. Atty., So. Dist. of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Otto G. Obermaier and Michael W. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Attys., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Denied November 6, 1967.See88 S.Ct. 308.

J.JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Alfred Dovico appeals from a judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Irving Ben Cooper, Judge, sitting without a jury, for violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 173,174.Appellant was indicted with one Paul Gangi who pleaded guilty and who did not testify in appellant's trial.Appellant Dovico was tried and convicted by Chief Judge Sidney Sugarman, sitting without a jury, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal.329 F.2d 52(1964).Dovico, in September 1964 moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; to wit, an affidavit of one Raphael Plattner which stated that while Plattner and Gangi were fellow inmates at Danbury Federal Correctional Institution, Gangi had told Plattner that Dovico was innocent and that Gangi had committed the crime without Dovico's knowledge.The affidavit further stated that Gangi had stated that he had not disclosed this information earlier because of fear of further prosecution.

Gangi died in December 1964, and in January 1965 Judge Sugarman set aside Dovico's conviction on the basis that the newly discovered evidence related by Plattner was material and would be admissible in a new trial as a declaration again Gangi's social interest.A new trial was had before Judge Cooper, who struck testimony as to Gangi's statements and again found Dovico guilty.261 F. Supp. 862.¹We find no error and affirm the judgment.

The trial testimony was to the following effect:

One Santiago, an informant, had agreed to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Gangi for $550, paid Gangi by Santiago.When Santiago arrived at Gangi's pizza shop he was told that the cocaine had not been delivered there.Gangi had not been delivered there.Gangi made several telephone calls and left the shop for about five minutes.On his return Gangi and Santiago cruised around but failed to locate the claimed supplier.The next evening Dovico came to the vicinity of the pizza shop and talked with Gangi.Dovico then left.Santiago, preceded by an undercover agent, entered the shop.After about an hour, Dovico entered with a young girl, ordered pizza pies, crumpled a brown paper bag in some paper napkins and waxed paper, dropped them in a trash receptacle and left with the girl.Gangi then went to the trash receptacle, removed the napkins and the brown paper bag and handed the bag, which proved to contain the cocaine, to Santiago.

At the retrial Judge Cooper permitted Plattner and others to testify that Gangi had said the Dovico was innocent, that Gangi had placed the narcotics in the receptacle without Dovico's knowledge or participation, that Gangi was solely responsible and that Gangi had not so testified at Dovico's trial because of fear of further prosecution.The court later excluded the testimony and further found that it was "devoid of credibility and of insufficient weight to lead this Court to find reasonable doubt * * *."

Appellant urges that the court should broaden the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule to include social and penal as well as pecuniary and proprietary interests.While it may be that penal and perhaps social interests should be included,²this case does not present the appropriate vehicle for such inclusion.Even if we should ignore the fact that Judge Cooper discredited the testimony that Gangi had made any such statements, as well as stated that the alleged statements by Gangi would not have changed his verdict anyway,³ the statements are inadmissible, for they are not definitely against Gangi's penal or social interests.He was already serving time for the violation admitted and his plea of guilty was already a reliable admission of guilt.He could not be prosecuted for the "declaration against penal interest."He had not testified at the trial and was not exposed to any possible perjury charge.Any possibility of prosecution for other offenses based on the revelation that Gangi committed the crime singly and therefore was a "bigger man" or on the implication that the government would spitefully prosecute someone who uncovered an unfair conviction is too remote to make the declaration reliable.Even a broadened penal interest exception must have some boundaries and must be limited at least to statements admitting a particular crime for which prosecution is possible at the time.Judge Sugarman recognized that the statements would not be admissible as against penal interest, but felt that they would be against "social interest."Judge Cooper, on the showing made on the second trial, held the statements not admissible as against social interest.⁴With this ruling we agree.

We need not rule here on whether...