United States v. Schipani, 269
Decision Date | 10 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 269,Docket 35161.,269 |
Citation | 435 F.2d 26 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph F. SCHIPANI, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jacob P. Lefkowitz, New York City (Abraham Glasser, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Edward R. Neaher, U. S. Atty., E.D. N.Y. (David G. Trager, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, HAYS and GIBBONS,* Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying a motion under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for reduction of sentence imposed upon appellant after conviction for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (1964).
The appeal raises a single issue: is it proper for a judge in deciding upon a sentence to use evidence which has been excluded from trial because it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Appellant's first conviction was vacated and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial on the ground that certain evidence introduced by the Government might have been acquired by unlawful wiretapping, Schipani v. United States, 385 U.S. 372, 87 S.Ct. 533, 17 L.Ed.2d 428 (1966). On the second trial, the questioned evidence was excluded but appellant was again convicted. His conviction was affirmed by this court, United States v. Schipani, 414 F. 2d 1262 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 922, 90 S.Ct. 902, 25 L.Ed.2d 102 (1970). Appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each of the five counts of which he was convicted, the sentences to run concurrently. In addition, he was fined $2,500 on each count for a total of $12,500.
Appellant moved under Rule 35 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a reduction of sentence. In denying this motion Judge Weinstein, who had presided at appellant's trial and had fixed the sentence, conceded that the prison sentence was "far longer than would be expected in a routine tax case," and stated that the primary reason for the severity of the sentence was the judge's conclusion that appellant was a "professional criminal." The judge acknowledged that this conclusion was based on information obtained from the excluded wiretaps which established, the judge said, that defendant was "a criminal figure, and that his undeclared income was the proceeds of organized crime." Judge Weinstein raised, sua sponte, the question of the propriety of using the excluded evidence for the purpose of determining the sentence. He decided that use of the evidence was proper. We agree and affirm the denial of the Rule 35 motion.
A sentencing judge's access to information should be almost completely unfettered in order that he may "acquire a thorough acquaintance with the character and history of the man before him." United States v. Doyle, 348 F. 2d 715, 721 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843, 86 S.Ct. 89, 15 L.Ed.2d 84 (1965).
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (footnote omitted).
This policy permits the broad acceptance of hearsay in the sentencing procedure. See, e. g., Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 79 S.Ct. 421, 3 L.Ed.2d 516 (1959).
In the present case the accuracy of the excluded evidence was not questioned either at sentencing or at the hearing of the motion which is here appealed. The information obtained by the wiretaps was highly relevant to the character of the sentence to be imposed.
The appellant urges that the rule providing for exclusion in certain proceedings of evidence obtained in violation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Janis, No. 74-958
...See United States ex rel. Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161 (CA2 1970) (intrasovereign/parole revocation); United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1198, 28 L.Ed.2d 334 (1971) (intersovereign/sentencing).33 And in Compton v. United States,......
-
United States v. Manuszak
...involved electronic surveillance are Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969) and United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1198, 28 L.Ed.2d 334 (1971). However, both of those cases involved electronic sur......
-
City of New Brunswick v. Speights
...679 (1975) (action on an insurance policy). The rule has also been held inapplicable to a subsequent sentence hearing, United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26 (2 Cir. 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1198, 28 L.Ed.2d 334 (1971), and to a collateral habeas corpus review of a convictio......
-
Logan v. State
...cause. Accord, United States v. Vandemark, 522 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Schipani, 315 F.Supp. 253, affirmed, 435 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1198, 28 L.Ed.2d 334 (1971); State v. Jones, 110 Ariz. 546, 521 P.2d 978 (1974) (en banc), cert. ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...when the illegal search was conducted "for the express purpose of improperly influencing the sentencing judge." United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1970); Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 7.3(f) Revocation of Conditional Release There is a split of authority ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...when the illegal search was conducted "for the express purpose of improperly influencing the sentencing judge." United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1970), cert denied, 401 U.S. 983 (1971); Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968), cert denied, 402 U.S. 961 7.3(......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...United States v. Butler, 680 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Lee, 540 F.2d 1205 (4th Cir. 1976); United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1970). See generally Michael K. Forde, The Exclusionary Rule at Sentencing: New Life Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 33 A......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...(4th Cir. 1976) (applying the exclusionary rule to sentencing hearing would have minimal deterrent effect); United States v. Schipani, 435 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1970) (applying exclusionary rule to sentencing hearing after it had been applied at trial "would not add in any significant way to......