United States v. Thomas

2 Citing briefs

  1. USA v. Mustafa et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed February 21, 2014

    Id., at 1264.5 Courts do not even reach the balancing test, however, without a credible and convincing predicate demonstration that there exists, in fact, “strong reason to believe the jury needs protection . . . .” defined as a finding that there is “a serious threat to jury safety . . . .” Thomas, supra, 757 F.2d at 1364-65, quoted with approval in Amuso, 21 F.3d at 1264; see also Wong, 40 F.3d at 1376 (“[e]mpaneling an anonymous jury undoubtedly has serious implications for a defendant’s interest in effectively conducting voir dire and in maintaining the presumption of innocence”).6 In determining whether the government has met its burden, the courts have identified 5 In Amuso, “[t]he crimes charged . . . showed that Amuso was willing to interfere with the judicial process by murdering government witnesses and, as head of the Luchese crime family, it was certainly reasonable to expect that Amuso had the means to interfere with jurors if he so desired.” 21 F.3d at 1264-65.

  2. USA v. Treacy

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed July 14, 2008

    But, as the Second Circuit has made clear, the relevant inquiry is not whether the same conduct underlies the counts but, rather, whether the offenses are distinct legally under the Blockburger test. See Chacko, 169 F.3d at 145; Fiore, 821 F.2d at 131 n. 5; Thomas, 757 F.2d at 1371. Under the Blockburger test and the prevailing law in this Circuit, Treacy’s multiplicity challenge to the Indictment must fail.