United States v. Richard Mastrangelo
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard MASTRANGELO, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Familiarity with our prior opinions, United States v. Mastrangelo, 662 F.2d 946 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 973 , 102 S.Ct. 2236 , 72 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982) and 693 F.2d 269 (2d Cir.1982), is assumed.
On remand after our most recent decision, 561 F.Supp. 1114 , Judge McLaughlin held a hearing and found that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant had prior knowledge of the plot to kill James Bennett. Appellant concedes this finding is not clearly erroneous. He argues, however, that we should decline to follow our decision that prior knowledge and a failure to warn appropriate authorities is sufficient to constitute waiver of the right to confrontation and that such waiver need be shown by only a preponderance rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Judge McLaughlin found that the latter test had been satisfied but that the former had not been. We adhere to our prior opinion, which is also supported by Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1202-03 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1501 -02, 75 L.Ed.2d 932 (1983).
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.