## Facts

- On April 19, 1984, a U.S. Postal Service contract carrier was hijacked and robbed in Rochester, New York, and roughly $221,000 in blank American Express travelers checks were taken.
- In late February 1985, Lucille Barone (Nick DiPaolo’s girlfriend) spoke with Rochester police officers and said she had information about the postal truck robbery.
- After Lucille’s contact with police, DiPaolo, Edward Weather, and Paul Snyder began accusing her of being a police informant and pressuring her not to talk to law enforcement.
- At D.J.’s Lounge, DiPaolo told Lucille she could “get into big trouble” for talking to police; Weather added that she should be made to understand she could get seriously hurt; Snyder told her it was “not a joke.”
- At Lucille’s home, DiPaolo referred to Weather and the Hell’s Angels, telling Lucille that they would not appreciate her “blabbing” to police and that she could have her legs broken.
- The government’s proof described repeated threats and use of physical force directed at Lucille and also at her sister-in-law, Joanne Barone, as part of an effort to stop them from communicating with law enforcement about the robbery.
- Joanne Barone became a key government witness describing threats and assaults tied to the intimidation campaign.
- The defense sought to cross-examine Joanne about a drinking problem and related matters to challenge her credibility and ability to perceive events.
- The trial judge conducted an in camera hearing. Joanne acknowledged past drinking problems but testified she was not drinking at the time of the assault and had been sober for at least several weeks.
- Based on that hearing, the trial court limited cross-examination about Joanne’s drinking and also restricted certain impeachment efforts, including attempts to prove alleged prior bad acts through extrinsic evidence.
- Snyder challenged a pretrial ruling that would have allowed impeachment of a potential alibi witness with a prior conviction; that witness ultimately did not testify, and the prosecution commented in summation on the absence.
- Weather sought severance and objected to evidence referencing his Hell’s Angels membership, arguing unfair prejudice.
- A jury convicted DiPaolo, Weather, and Snyder of conspiracy to intimidate witnesses and prevent communication to law enforcement (18 U.S.C. § 371) and substantive witness-tampering counts involving intimidation and physical force against Lucille and Joanne (18 U.S.C. § 1512). DiPaolo was also convicted of criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. § 401).
- The defendants appealed, primarily challenging evidentiary and trial-management rulings rather than the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court violate the Confrontation Clause or abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of Joanne Barone about her drinking problem and related credibility matters after an in camera hearing?
2. Did the trial court err by restricting impeachment through extrinsic proof of alleged prior bad acts?
3. Did the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses and criticisms of counsel deprive defendants of a fair trial?
4. Was evidence concerning assaults on Joanne Barone admissible as relevant proof of the charged witness-intimidation conspiracy and substantive § 1512 offenses, or should it have been excluded as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial?
5. Did an in limine ruling permitting Rule 609 impeachment of Snyder’s proposed alibi witness improperly affect the defense, and was the prosecutor’s summation comment about the witness’s absence improper?
6. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying severance, and by admitting evidence connected to Weather’s Hell’s Angels affiliation to explain the intimidation context?
7. Was DiPaolo’s criminal contempt conviction affected by reversible error?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The court held the trial judge acted within permissible discretion in limiting cross-examination of Joanne Barone about her drinking problem after the in camera hearing showed she was not drinking at the time of the events about which she testified.
- The court upheld limits on impeachment that would have relied on extrinsic proof of collateral misconduct.
- The court concluded that the trial judge’s interventions did not, viewed in context of the whole trial, deny defendants a fair trial.
- The court held evidence of threats and physical force, including assaults on Joanne Barone, was properly admitted as part of the intimidation scheme charged under § 371 and § 1512.
- The court rejected Snyder’s challenges to the impeachment ruling and the prosecutor’s summation comment as grounds for reversal.
- The court upheld the denial of severance and approved admitting evidence referencing the Hell’s Angels where it helped explain why the threats carried meaning and force.
- The court affirmed DiPaolo’s criminal contempt conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad authority under the Federal Rules of Evidence to control the scope and manner of cross-examination; reasonable limits based on relevance, confusion, or unfair prejudice generally do not violate the Confrontation Clause when defendants still have a meaningful chance to test credibility.
- A judge may rely on an in camera hearing to assess whether proposed impeachment (such as substance use) bears on a witness’s ability to perceive, remember, or recount the events at issue.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), courts may bar attempts to prove specific instances of conduct through extrinsic evidence when offered to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness, especially where it would lead to collateral disputes.
- Evidence of threats, intimidation, and related physical assaults may be admissible when it tends to prove a charged witness-tampering conspiracy and substantive witness-tampering offenses, subject to Rule 403 balancing.
- Evidence of group affiliation (such as Hell’s Angels membership) may be admitted for a non-propensity purpose, including explaining why a threat would be understood as serious, so long as unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh probative value.
- Joint trials are generally proper for defendants charged together in a single conspiracy; severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 requires a showing of substantial prejudice beyond ordinary spillover.
- Rule 609 permits impeachment of a witness with qualifying prior convictions in appropriate circumstances; prosecutorial comment on the absence of expected defense evidence may be allowed when it does not shift the burden of proof or comment on a defendant’s silence.

## Conclusion

United States v. DiPaolo affirmed convictions arising from an effort to intimidate Lucille Barone and Joanne Barone to stop them from communicating with law enforcement about a postal truck robbery. The Second Circuit held the district court acted within its authority in limiting impeachment of Joanne after an in camera hearing, restricting collateral extrinsic impeachment, admitting evidence of threats and assaults (including context involving the Hell’s Angels), denying severance, and managing the trial, and it also left DiPaolo’s criminal contempt conviction in place.


United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225 (1986)