## Facts

- Christian Gerold Tarantino was charged in the Eastern District of New York with offenses arising from the killing of Vincent Gargiulo, including conspiracy to commit an obstruction-of-justice murder and related charges.
- The government’s theory was that Gargiulo possessed damaging information about Tarantino—particularly a secret recording in which Tarantino discussed serious crimes—and that Tarantino participated in having Gargiulo killed to prevent Gargiulo from selling or providing that information to law enforcement.
- Before the retrial on the Gargiulo-related counts, the government filed a motion in limine seeking to admit evidence of Tarantino’s “uncharged criminal activity and bad acts.”
- The proposed evidence included Tarantino’s alleged involvement in an armored-car robbery and associated violence, as well as involvement in other serious violent crimes referenced in the government’s theory of why Gargiulo had leverage over Tarantino.
- The government argued that this evidence was needed to explain what the recording was about, why Gargiulo had value to the FBI, and why Tarantino would have a reason to silence Gargiulo.
- Tarantino opposed admission, arguing that the evidence amounted to propensity proof barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that any limited probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
- The court issued a Memorandum & Order memorializing its rulings on the government’s request to admit these categories of evidence at the retrial.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Tarantino participated in other serious crimes referenced by the government’s theory of motive was admissible as direct evidence because it was part of the narrative of the charged obstruction-of-justice murder conspiracy.
2. If not direct evidence, whether the same evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for non-propensity purposes such as motive.
3. Whether, even if relevant and offered for a proper purpose, the evidence (or portions of it) should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 due to unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court ruled that evidence of Tarantino’s involvement in crimes tied to the alleged recording and the government’s motive theory (including the armored-car robbery and related killings, and other killings discussed in the government’s theory) was admissible as direct evidence because it was “inextricably intertwined” with the charged obstruction-of-justice murder conspiracy.
- In the alternative, the court held that even if treated as “other acts” evidence, the same evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive (not propensity), subject to appropriate limits.
- The court applied Rule 403 and limited or excluded any proposed “bad act” proof to the extent its danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that directly explains the charged conduct—because it is part of the same transaction or is “inextricably intertwined” with the charged offense—may be treated as direct evidence rather than “other acts” evidence governed by Rule 404(b).
- Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) bars using other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove character and action in conformity with that character, but permits such evidence for non-propensity purposes, including motive.
- When other-acts evidence is offered to prove motive, the proponent must show a legitimate non-propensity chain of reasoning connecting the act to a contested issue in the case.
- Even relevant evidence offered for a proper purpose may be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.
- Courts may admit other-acts evidence with limiting instructions and by restricting scope to what is necessary to present the government’s theory without inviting a character-based verdict.

## Conclusion

The court largely permitted the government to present evidence about Tarantino’s alleged participation in other serious crimes because it helped explain the recording that allegedly gave Gargiulo leverage and, in turn, the government’s theory of Tarantino’s motive for the charged obstruction-of-justice murder conspiracy, while restricting or excluding portions of proposed bad-acts proof where Rule 403 concerns outweighed the evidence’s value.


United States v. Tarantino, No. 08-CR-0655(JS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159850 (2012)