United States District Court, S.D. New York
June 27, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ANGELO DIPIETRO ET. AL., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRLEY KRAM, Senior District Judge
OPINION & ORDER
Defendant Angelo Capalbo seeks to introduce purported summary
charts into evidence through proposed witness, Mary
Woods.*fn1 Last week, the Court denied Capalbo's attempt to
call Ms. Woods in order to introduce the charts, finding that the
charts were unreliable, misleading, and not competent evidence.
Having now revised the charts, Capalbo again seeks to introduce
them through Ms. Woods. That request is denied. The charts, at
least three different versions of which were sent to the Court
over the weekend, are not evidence; instead, they appear to be
the defendant's interpretation of the evidence. At best, the
charts are argument, more properly suited for summation. Counsel for Defendant Angelo Capalbo, William I. Aronwald, also
indicates that he intends to call as a witness Assistant United
States Attorney Leslie Brown (the initial AUSA assigned to this
case) to explore the scope of any possible contact between Ms.
Brown and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office regarding the
prosecution of cooperating witness Din Celaj. The Court will not
permit Ms. Brown to testify. Even if Capalbo could establish
that: 1) the Government made a false representation to the Court
with respect to Celaj's prosecution; 2) that a benefit was
conferred on Celaj by charging him federally with felonies; and
3) that Celaj knew about that benefit which he quite clearly
cannot the suggested testimony is wholly irrelevant. Moreover,
calling AUSA Brown is clearly inappropriate impeachment through
extrinsic evidence.*fn2 See FRE 608(b).