Filed April 30, 2012
The statements were obtained via covert wiretap of which neither party was aware; were volunteered by Rajaratnam in a conversation initiated by him; were made to a trusted colleague; implicated Rajaratnam and Gupta in jointly undertaken criminal activity; were not made to law enforcement officials or in a coercive environment; and did not attempt to shift blame or minimize culpability. See Bryce, 208 F.3d at 350-51; see also Matthews, 20 F.3d at 546. 42 Case 1:11-cr-00907-JSR Document 55 Filed 04/30/12 Page 48 of 49 Case 1:11-cr-00907-JSR Document 55 Filed 04/30/12 Page 49 of 49
Filed August 16, 2013
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d at 180 (“courts must be careful to avoid usurping the role of the jury when confronted with a motion for acquittal”) (citing Guadagna, 183 F.3d at 129 (“Rule 29(c) does not provide the trial court with an opportunity to substitute its own determination of . . . the weight of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn for that of the jury.”)); United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 548 (2d Cir. 1994) (stating that the Court must affirm conviction “so long as, from the inferences reasonably drawn from the record as a whole, the jury might fairly have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”). “The fact that a trier of fact has declined to draw one of two or more competing inferences does not mean that the inferences drawn were not available or were not reasonable.”
Filed February 19, 2013
The phrase "at trial" has been interpreted consistently to include the government's rebuttal case. See, e.g., United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 551 (2d Cir. 1994) 4 Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 101 Filed 02/19/13 Page 7 of 12 (noting that the "at trial" language of the notice provision of Rule 404(b) "applies whether the government wishes to use the other-act evidence in its direct case, on rebuttal, or as impeachment"); accord, United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1273 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Vega, 188 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1999). The phrase "at trial" should be construed to have the same meaning in Rule 16(a)(1)(G).
Filed May 22, 2012
" United States v. McDermott, 245 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2001). Moreover, a reviewing court must analyze the pieces of evidence "not in isolation but in conjunction," United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 548 (2d Cir. 1994), and must apply the sufficiency test "to the . totality of the government's case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others.