## Facts

- A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging John Gotti and Frank Locascio (among others) with RICO and related crimes tied to the Gambino Crime Family.
- The government alleged the defendants conducted the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering that included murder, obstruction of legal proceedings, gambling, and loansharking.
- A key cooperating witness, Salvatore Gravano, testified extensively about the organization’s structure and defendants’ roles (boss, underboss, consigliere).
- The government introduced electronic surveillance evidence recorded by court-authorized listening devices placed in and near the Ravenite Social Club and an upstairs apartment, capturing conversations used to prove the enterprise and predicate acts.
- After a multi-week jury trial in the Eastern District of New York, Gotti was convicted on all counts and Locascio was convicted on all but one gambling count; both received life sentences on the RICO and murder counts, with concurrent maximum terms on remaining counts.
- Post-trial, the government disclosed previously unproduced reports bearing on Gravano’s credibility; defendants moved for a new trial under Rule 33 based on alleged Brady nondisclosure, and the district court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by disqualifying Gotti’s preferred counsel based on conflict-of-interest and “unsworn witness” concerns.
2. Whether the district court improperly admitted expert testimony describing the structure and operations of organized crime under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
3. Whether the district court erred in admitting recordings from the Ravenite electronic surveillance.
4. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation warranted reversal.
5. Whether the government’s late disclosure of impeachment material concerning Gravano required a new trial under Brady and Rule 33.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and the orders denying the Rule 33 new-trial motions.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in disqualifying conflicted counsel where there was an actual or potentially serious conflict and a risk counsel would function as an unsworn witness.
- The court upheld admission of organized-crime expert testimony as a proper Rule 702 subject, helpful to jurors and reviewed deferentially on appeal.
- The court found no reversible error in the admission of the Ravenite recordings, rejecting defendants’ statutory, constitutional, and privilege-based challenges.
- The court concluded the prosecutor’s summation did not cause substantial prejudice depriving defendants of a fair trial.
- The court held the late-produced impeachment materials were not material under Brady because they were largely cumulative of impeachment already before the jury and did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome given the strength of the independent evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice is substantial but not absolute; a trial court may disqualify chosen counsel where an actual conflict or potentially serious conflict threatens the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, including when counsel may become an unsworn witness.
- Disqualification decisions receive substantial deference on appeal and are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when it assists the jury in understanding evidence or issues outside ordinary experience; admission is reviewed for manifest error.
- Court-authorized electronic surveillance evidence is admissible when statutory requirements (including minimization) and constitutional standards are satisfied; trial-court privilege determinations are reviewed for reversible error.
- Brady requires disclosure of favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment; impeachment evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different result.
- A Rule 33 new trial based on nondisclosure is unwarranted when the new impeachment material is cumulative and the remaining evidence supports confidence in the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld the RICO convictions of Gotti and Locascio, ruling that disqualification of conflicted counsel and admission of organized-crime expert testimony and surveillance recordings were within the district court’s discretion, that alleged summation errors did not render the trial unfair, and that late-disclosed impeachment material regarding the cooperating witness was not material under Brady and did not justify a new trial.


United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir. 1993)