United States v. George Lecco, 4th Cir. (2011)
United States v. George Lecco, 4th Cir. (2011)
United States v. George Lecco, 4th Cir. (2011)
No. 10-5003
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:05-cr-00107-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
George Lecco appeals his conviction, following a jury
trial,
of
one
count
of
conspiracy
to
distribute
cocaine,
in
counts
of
distribution
of
cocaine,
in
violation
of
21
cocaine
conspiracy,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
of
witness
retaliation
by
killing,
in
violation
of
18
and
conceal
1512(k) (2006).
evidence,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
continued
to
deal
cocaine
and
carry
firearms
after
the
murder
implicating
Lecco;
(2) the
district
court
to
police
investigation;
Amendment
and
rights
to
show
police
misconduct
(4)
the
Government
violated
by
presenting
perjured
during
Leccos
testimony
at
the
Fifth
trial.
on
review
the
for
abuse
admissibility
of
of
discretion
evidence.
if
it
is
offered
against
trial
United
courts
States
v.
A statement is not
the
defendant
and
is
For
statement
to
be
Fed. R. Evid.
admissible
under
Rule
262
(4th
Cir.
2006)
the
admission
of
co-
367
F.3d
admission
of
informant
because
278,
292
(5th
co-conspirators
he
had
Cir.
threat
snitched
2004)
to
on
(upholding
kill
the
the
government
leader
of
the
abused
its
conspiracy).
Lecco
discretion
Collins
contends
in
that
admitting
they
disagree.
The
explanation
that
was
were
district
Burton
and
killing
her
district
in
the
court
furtherance
court
Friends
at
Leccos
correctly
of
the
explanation
to
request.
We
held
conspiracy
that
the
because
it
the
conspirators
explanation
of
the
was
penalty
intended
for
to
failing
remind
to
carry
the
co-
out
the
Rule
for
therewith,
the
purpose
excepting
of
evidence
proving
of
action
in
pertinent
conformity
trait
of
Fed. R.
Evid. 405; see also United States v. Gravely, 840 F.2d 1156,
1164
(4th
essential
Cir.
1988)
element
of
(Unless
a
evidence
charge,
claim
or
of
character
an
proof
of
defense,
is
people
in
his
community
on
several
occasions
in
an
element
Lecco,
of
see
any
18
of
the
U.S.C.
charges
that
922(g)(1),
were
brought
924(c)(1),
(j)
Moreover,
third
claim
is
also
without
merit.
Lecco
to
police.
At
trial,
Lecco
argued
that
those
statements
investigation.
to
suggest
police
misconduct
during
the
they
were
hearsay,
at
best,
and
that
they
were
otherwise
Lecco
that
the
proffered
we
agree
with
evidence was not hearsay, as it was not offered for the truth of
the matter asserted, Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), we hold that it was
within the district courts discretion to exclude the evidence
as irrelevant.
would
be
without
the
evidence.
Fed.
R.
Evid.
401.
to
be
consideration
relevant,
by
the
evidence
jury,
or
have
need
a
only
plus
be
value.
worth
Id.
(quoting United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 998 (4th Cir.
1997)).
the charges and claims being tried, rather than in the context
of defenses which might have been raised but were not.
United
to
his
attempted
introduction
of
the
false
cocaine
binge
with
which
he
was
not
involved.
the
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
in
Lecco
diametrically
argues
opposed
that
to
Friends
Burtons
testimony
that
the
was
so
Government
testimony,
to
obtain
tainted
violation,
claimant
conviction.
Napue
v.
must
show
the
falsity
and
testimony
likelihood
that
is
the
material
false
if
testimony
there
is
any
could
have
reasonable
affected
the
characterizes
the
Governments
assertion
at
Lecco
Burtons
at
least
the
closest
true
7
story
of
what
happened
to
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED