Opinion
Docket Nos. 88-1464, 88-1470 to 88-1474, 88-1477, 88-1547, 90-1291, 90-1292, 90-1296, 90-1297, 90-1301, 90-1311, 90-1312 and 90-1351.
November 6, 1991.
Alan M. Cohen, Mark R. Hellerer, Asst. U.S. Attys., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., Jonathan Leibman, Daniel Nardello, Cathy Seibel, Daniel C. Richman, Asst. U.S. Attys., S.D.N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Jay Goldberg, New York City (Judd Burstein, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Matthew Ianniello.
Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex. (Newman Schwartz, Gustave H. Newman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Vincent Di Napoli.
Robert L. Ellis, New York City, for defendant-appellant Louis Di Napoli.
Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D.C. (Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin, Stephen L. Braga, Edith R. Lampson, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Nicholas Auletta.
Frederick P. Hafetz, New York City (Goldman Hafetz, Susan R. Necheles, Christy Viener, Arthur H. Christy, Maria T. Galeno, New York City, Toll, Ebby, Langer Marvin, Peter F. Marvin, Philadelphia, Pa., Jeremy Gutman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Edward J. Halloran.
Walter P. Loughlin, New York City, for defendant-appellant Aniello Migliore.
Judd Burstein, New York City (John Jacobs, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Anthony Salerno.
Patrick M. Wall, New York City, for defendant-appellant Alvin O. Chattin.
Before PRATT, MINER, and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse in the City of New York, on the 6th day of November, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the last sentence of Part IIIA2a of the opinion in this case, now published at 937 F.2d 797, 805, is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Thus, in interpreting Rule 804(b)(1) and particularly the condition attached to that rule requiring a "similar motive" to develop the prior testimony, we view the testimony of Bruno and DeMatteis as available to the government but unavailable to the defendants. It goes without saying, of course, that we have not considered in this case, because the issue is not before us, whether the government's power to grant immunity would affect a declarant's "availability" under any of the other subdivisions of Rule 804(b).