Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Mastrangelo, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 722 F.2d 13
Submitted Aug. 4, 1983.Decided Nov. 4, 1983
Gerard L. Shargel, New York City (Judd Burstein, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Mastrangelo.
William J. Muller, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., L. Kevin Sheridan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee United States of America.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, OAKES and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Familiarity with our prior opinions, United States v. Mastrangelo, 662 F.2d 946 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 973, 102 S.Ct. 2236, 72 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982) and 693 F.2d 269 (2d Cir.1982), is assumed.
On remand after our most recent decision, 561 F.Supp. 1114, Judge McLaughlin held a hearing and found that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant had prior knowledge of the plot to kill James Bennett. Appellant concedes this finding is not clearly erroneous. He argues, however, that we should decline to follow our decision that prior knowledge and a failure to warn appropriate authorities is sufficient to constitute waiver of the right to confrontation and that such waiver need be shown by only a preponderance rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Judge McLaughlin found that the latter test had been satisfied but that the former had not been. We adhere to our prior opinion, which is also supported by Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1202-03 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1501-02, 75 L.Ed.2d 932 (1983).
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.