U.S.
v.
Traficant

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern DivisionApr 1, 2002
Case No. 4:01 CR 207 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2002)

Case No. 4:01 CR 207

April 1, 2002


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALLOW HARRY MANGANARO TO TESTIFY REGARDING DAVID SUGAR


Before the Court is Defendant Traficant's motion to allow Harry Manganaro to testify to an out-of-court statement of David Sugar. (Docket # 296). The government opposes the motion. (Docket # 304).

On 21 March 2002, Harry Manganaro testified as a defense witness. At several times during the direct examination, the government objected to questions on hearsay grounds. This Court reserved ruling on these objections so that the responses to Defendant Traficant's questions could be elicited out of the presence of the jury during a voir dire. Defendant Traficant was given an opportunity to voir dire Mr. Manganaro the next morning, on 22 March 2002. However, Defendant Traficant did not arrange for Mr. Manganaro to be at the courthouse for the voir dire at that time. (3/22/02 Tr. at 4563). Although he still could schedule a voir dire of Mr. Manganaro with the Court, Defendant Traficant has not done so to date.

Defendant Traficant now contends that Mr. Manganaro would have testified to a statement by David Sugar that allegedly would be inconsistent with one of Mr. Sugar's statements from the witness stand.

Mr. Manganaro will not be permitted to testify again before the jury as a defense witness to respond to questions that have been objected to by the government unless and until he is asked those questions during a voir dire outside the hearing of the jury. It remains Defendant Traficant's responsibility to arrange for Mr. Manganaro's presence at a voir dire scheduled with the Court and the government.

Accordingly, the defense motion is denied.