## Facts

- Federal authorities investigated an illegal firearms-trafficking scheme in New York involving sales of guns, including firearms with obliterated serial numbers, without the required federal license.
- The government’s proof included testimony from cooperating coconspirator Richard C. Van Allen (who also made recorded conversations after arrest), testimony from Kristine Kramer (Armienti’s former girlfriend), and corroborating records.
- The evidence at trial supported findings that Van Allen supplied Sasso with guns from 1989 to 1992 and that Armienti participated from 1990 to 1992.
- After a jury trial, Sasso and Armienti were convicted of conspiracy to deal in firearms and to possess/receive firearms with obliterated serial numbers (18 U.S.C. § 371) and dealing in firearms without a license (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A)).
- Sasso was also convicted of possessing defaced firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(k)); Armienti, a felon, was also convicted of firearm possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- The district court barred any cross-examination of Kramer about psychiatric treatment and prescribed mood-stabilizing medication taken after depression stemming from an unrelated fatal car accident.
- Defendants moved for a new trial, alleging perjury by a key government witness and improper government use of false testimony; the motion was denied.
- Armienti received a 115-month sentence and Sasso a 51-month sentence; each also received supervised release and a $50,000 fine.

## Issues

1. Whether barring cross-examination about Kramer’s psychiatric treatment and medication violated the defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
2. Whether admitting statements attributed to Armienti that implicated Sasso violated Sasso’s confrontation rights.
3. Whether denial of a new trial based on alleged perjury was an abuse of discretion, including whether any false testimony was material and knowingly used by the prosecution.
4. Whether Armienti’s Guidelines calculation and the $50,000 fine were erroneous.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants.
- The court held the categorical exclusion of cross-examination into Kramer’s psychiatric history and medication did not violate the Confrontation Clause because defendants failed to show a link to her ability to perceive, recall, or testify truthfully and they had other meaningful impeachment avenues.
- The court rejected Sasso’s confrontation challenge to admission of Armienti’s statements, finding no Bruton-type violation under the circumstances and rules governing admissibility.
- The court upheld denial of a new trial, concluding defendants did not establish actual perjury, prosecutorial knowledge, or materiality sufficient to affect the verdict.
- The court upheld Armienti’s Guidelines determinations and the fine, finding the district court’s factual findings supported by the record and its ability-to-pay determination not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unlimited inquiry in whatever manner the defense prefers.
- Cross-examination into a witness’s psychiatric treatment or medication may be limited or excluded where the proponent does not show a concrete connection to perception, memory, or veracity, and where the jury still has an adequate basis to evaluate credibility through other impeachment.
- Trial courts have substantial discretion under relevance and prejudice principles to restrict impeachment lines that are marginally probative or likely to confuse or prejudice the jury.
- A new trial based on alleged perjury requires proof of falsity, prosecutorial knowledge (or constructive knowledge), and materiality (a reasonable likelihood the false testimony could have affected the verdict), along with diligence considerations.
- Sentencing determinations based on trial-supported factual findings—such as scope of conspiracy, number of firearms, and role adjustments—are reviewed deferentially; fines may be upheld where the court considers statutory/Guidelines factors and a supported ability-to-pay finding.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed the firearms-trafficking convictions and sentences, holding that limiting cross-examination about a witness’s psychiatric treatment did not deny confrontation where no showing tied it to testimonial reliability and other impeachment remained available, and that alleged perjury, hearsay challenges, and sentencing objections did not justify reversal or a new trial.


United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 1995)