United States v. Frank Locascio, and John Gotti

Defendants-appellants John Gotti and Frank Locascio appeal from judgments of conviction entered on June 23, 1992 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.). They also appeal from the district court's October 30, 1992 order denying their motion for a new trial and a subsequent denial of a renewed motion for a new trial.

Gotti and Locascio were convicted after a jury trial of substantive and conspiracy violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) and (d) (1988), and various predicate acts charged as separate counts. They were each principally sentenced to life imprisonment. The charges stemmed from their involvement with the Gambino Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, an extensive criminal organization.

On appeal, Gotti and Locascio raise numerous challenges to their convictions and the subsequent denial of their motion for a new trial. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgments of the district court.

On July 18, 1991, a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York returned a thirteen count superseding indictment against Gotti and Locascio. The indictment also named two other defendants, Salvatore Gravano and Thomas Gambino, who are not parties to this appeal. All four defendants were charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c)-(d) (1988), for unlawfully conducting and participating in the affairs of a criminal enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The charged enterprise was the Gambino Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra ("the Gambinos," "The Gambino Family," or "the Gambino Crime Family"). Gotti was charged as the head of the organization, and Locascio was accused of being the "underboss," or second-in-command.

Gravano was charged as the "consigliere," or advisor, to Gotti. Following the indictment, Gravano pleaded guilty to a superseding racketeering charge and testified at length at trial against Gotti and Locascio. The charges against Gambino, a "captain" in the organization, were severed.

Counts One and Two of the indictment charged Gotti and Locascio with the substantive and conspiracy violations of RICO. Many of the crimes charged as racketeering acts in the RICO counts were also the basis of separate counts in the indictment. Gotti was charged with the following predicate acts: the conspiracy to murder and the murder of Paul Castellano; the murder of Thomas Bilotti; the conspiracy to murder and the murder of Robert DiBernardo; the conspiracy to murder and the murder of Liborio Milito; and obstruction of justice at the Thomas Gambino trial. Gotti and Locascio were both charged with the following predicate acts: the conspiracy to murder and the murder of Louis DiBono; the conspiracy to murder Gaetano Vastola; conducting an illegal gambling business in Queens, New York; conducting an illegal gambling business in Connecticut; conspiracy to make extortionate extensions of credit; and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Castellano murder. Gotti and Locascio were also charged in separate counts for a conspiracy to obstruct grand jury investigations, bribery of a public servant, and a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Gotti and Locascio were tried before a sequestered anonymous jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.). Prior to trial, there were numerous government and defense motions, most of which need not be recounted at length. The motions that are the subject of this appeal included: the government's successful motion to sequester an anonymous jury; the government's successful motion to disqualify counsel for both Gotti and Locascio for various conflicts of interest; and Locascio's unsuccessful motion to sever his trial from Gotti's.

Trial began in February 1992. The government's proof to support the allegations that Gotti and Locascio had been in command of an extensive criminal enterprise was comprised mostly of lawfully intercepted tape-recorded conversations of the defendants-appellants and other alleged members of the Gambino Family. The government introduced tape recordings from four different locations over an eight-year period.

The most significant evidence consisted of conversations intercepted at 247 Mulberry Street in New York during the period from late 1989 until early 1990. The government had installed three listening devices in that building: in the Ravenite Social Club on the first floor, in a hallway behind the club's rear door, and in an apartment two stories above the club ("the Ravenite Apartment"). It was this last location that proved the most fruitful for the government, and the most damaging for the defendants-appellants. In the discussions in the Ravenite Apartment, Gotti, Locascio, and other Gambino Family members discussed various illegal acts. These discussions formed the core of the proof against the defendants-appellants at trial. Another major source of evidence was the testimony of Salvatore Gravano, who cooperated with the government following the indictment. As a high-level insider in the Gambino Family, Gravano's testimony was especially damaging.

The tape recordings, combined with Gravano's testimony, presented to the jury a picture of a large-scale enterprise involved in various criminal activities. The jury heard evidence on the structure and inner workings of the Gambino Family, and learned of the miscellaneous crimes with which Gotti and Locascio were charged: murders, obstruction of legal proceedings, conspiracies, gambling operations, and loansharking activities. It is unnecessary to recount the evidence in detail at this point, since much of it is unnecessary for full understanding of the issues on appeal.

Following a six-week trial, the jury found Gotti guilty of all charges in the indictment. Locascio was found guilty of all charges except the count relating to a gambling operation in Queens, New York. Each defendant-appellant was sentenced by the district court to life in prison on the RICO and murder counts, and the statutory maximum prison terms on all remaining counts, with all sentences to run concurrently. The court also imposed five years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine on each defendant, and mandatory special assessments.

Several months after sentencing, government attorneys discovered previously undiscovered reports that potentially pertained to Gravano's credibility. The government turned over those reports to the defendants-appellants, who subsequently moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, on the ground that the government had not disclosed relevant evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). This motion and a later renewed motion were both denied by the district court.

On appeal, Gotti and Locascio raise myriad challenges to their convictions and to the subsequent denial of their new trial motions. They contend that the district court erred in: (1) disqualifying counsel for both Gotti and Locascio for conflicts of interest; (2) allowing certain government expert testimony; (3) instructing the jury; (4) allowing evidence of other crimes that were inadmissible against them; (5) impanelling an anonymous sequestered jury; (6) refusing to sever Locascio's trial; and (7) denying a motion for a new trial based on the government's suppression of material relating to Gravano's credibility. The defendants-appellants also argue that they were denied a fair trial based on the government's suppression of exculpatory evidence and prosecutorial misconduct.

For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Prior to trial, the district court disqualified attorneys for both Gotti and Locascio. Gotti and Locascio now contend that these disqualifications were unwarranted and violated their Sixth Amendment rights.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The accused, however, does not have the absolute right to counsel of her own choosing. SeeWheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 1697, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). As the Court stated in Wheat,

while the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers.

Id. Similarly, although a criminal defendant can waive her Sixth Amendment rights in some circumstances, that right to waiver is not absolute, since "[f]ederal courts have an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them." Id. at 160, 108 S.Ct. at 1698. The question of disqualification therefore implicates not only the Sixth Amendment right of the accused, but also the interests of the courts in preserving the integrity of the process and the government's interests in ensuring a just verdict and a fair trial. Seeid.

In deciding a motion for disqualification, the district court recognizes a presumption in favor of the accused's chosen counsel, although this presumption can be overcome by a showing of an actual conflict or potentially serious conflict. Seeid. at 164, 108 S.Ct. at 1699; United States ex rel. Stewart v. Kelly, 870 F.2d 854, 856 (2d Cir.1989). We accord the district court's decision to disqualify an attorney "substantial latitude," and review the decision only for an abuse of discretion. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163-64, 108 S.Ct. at 1699.

There are many situations in which a district court can determine that disqualification of counsel is necessary. The most typical is where the district court finds a potential or actual conflict in the chosen attorney's representation of the accused, either in a multiple representation situation, seeWheat, 486 U.S. at 159-60, 108 S.Ct. at 1697-98; United States v. DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 219 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881, 886 (2d Cir.1982), or because of the counsel's prior representation of a witness or co-defendant, seeStewart, 870 F.2d at 856-57. Courts have also considered disqualification where the chosen counsel is implicated in the allegations against the accused and could become an unsworn witness for the accused, seeUnited States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 817, 110 S.Ct. 70, 107 L.Ed.2d 37 (1989); United States v. Kwang Fu Peng, 766 F.2d 82, 87 (2d Cir.1985), or where the chosen counsel is somehow unable to serve without unreasonable delay or inconvenience in completing the trial, seeUnited States v. Scopo, 861 F.2d 339, 344 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048, 109 S.Ct. 1957, 104 L.Ed.2d 426 (1989).

In this case, the government moved to disqualify attorneys for both Gotti and Locascio on multiple theories. We consider each of the defendants-appellants in turn.

Bruce Cutler served as Gotti's attorney in previous criminal trials in federal court. Prior to trial, the government moved to disqualify Cutler from acting as Gotti's attorney. Although the motion also dealt with the disqualification of other Gotti attorneys, only the disqualification of Cutler has been challenged on appeal.

The district court granted the motion to disqualify on several grounds. United States v. Gotti, 771 F.Supp. 552 (E.D.N.Y.1991). Judge Glasser, in a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, found that Cutler had acted as "house counsel" to the Gambino Crime Family by receiving "benefactor payments" from Gotti to represent others in the criminal enterprise. Id. at 560. The district court based this conclusion on excerpts from the government's taped transcripts, which left "little doubt that Gotti paid significant sums of money for legal services rendered to others." Id.

The district court further determined that Cutler's participation in government-taped conversations at which illegal activity was discussed would impair his representation of Gotti. Id. at 562-63. Specifically, the court noted that Cutler's mere presence at trial could make him an "unsworn witness" before the jury in explaining his own conduct and interpreting Gotti's conversations on the tapes. Id. at 563. Even if Gotti waived the conflict, and even if the government did not intend to call Cutler as a witness, the district court found that Cutler's representation would still compromise the integrity of the proceeding. Id.

Third, the district court found that Cutler's prior representation of Michael Coiro, a potential government witness, gave rise to a conflict of interest. Id. The court reasoned that this conflict mandated disqualification both because Cutler was privy to events surrounding an obstruction charge, and because Cutler's cross examination of Coiro at trial would be circumscribed by the prior representation. Id. at 563-65.

Finally, the district court also found disqualification warranted because of the implication by Gotti in taped conversations that he had paid Cutler money "under the table." Id. at 565. This made Cutler a potential accomplice as well as a potential witness to Gotti's tax fraud.

In conclusion, the district court noted that it was mindful that disqualification is a drastic remedy for conflict problems, but that no less severe alternatives were viable. Id. at 566. The court therefore held that "the grave peril the continued representation by [Cutler] poses to the integrity of the trial process" mandated disqualification. Id.

Gotti now appeals the district court's ruling, arguing that the disqualification was an abuse of discretion. We disagree, and affirm the disqualification on two grounds: (1) Cutler's role as house counsel to the Gambino Crime Family; and (2) Cutler's anticipated role as an "unsworn witness" for Gotti had he been allowed to serve. We note that, importantly, Gotti does not challenge the effectiveness of his replacement trial counsel. Although the government cannot justify an otherwise unwarranted disqualification by arguing that the disqualification did not result in the accused receiving ineffective assistance of counsel, seeUnited States v. Diozzi, 807 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1986), the fact that Gotti received more than competent representation is an additional consideration strongly supporting the district court's otherwise entirely correct ruling.

Gotti argues that the facts before the district court did not merit the conclusion that Cutler had acted as "house counsel" to the Gambino Crime Family. Rather, Gotti argues that Cutler was merely his personal attorney.

Ethical considerations warn against an attorney accepting fees from someone other than her client. As we stated in a different context, the acceptance of such "benefactor payments" "may subject an attorney to undesirable outside influence" and raises an ethical question "as to whether the attorney's loyalties are with the client or the payor." In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon John Doe, 781 F.2d 238, 248 n. 6 (2d Cir.1985) (in banc ), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1108, 106 S.Ct. 1515, 89 L.Ed.2d 914 (1986). In this context, proof of house counsel can be used by the government to help establish the existence of the criminal enterprise under RICO, by showing the connections among the participants. SeeUnited States v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 949 (2d Cir.) (holding that government can use evidence of benefactor payments to prove existence of enterprise), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2018, 114 L.Ed.2d 104 (1991); United States v. Castellano, 610 F.Supp. 1151 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (disqualifying attorney because attorney's acceptance of benefactor payments could be used to prove existence of enterprise).

Contrary to Gotti's assertions, there was sufficient evidence for the district court to determine that Cutler had acted as house counsel to the Gambino Crime Family. For example, the court cited one conversation in which Gotti, in the time-honored tradition of legal clients, complained about his legal fees:

I gave youse [sic] 300,000 in one year. Youse [sic] didn't defend me. I wasn't even mentioned in none of these [expletive deleted] things. I had nothing to do with none of these [expletive deleted] people. What the [expletive deleted] is your "beef?" ... Before youse [sic] made a court appearance, youse [sic] got 40,000, 30,000 and 25,000. That's without counting [attorney] John Pollok.... You standing there in the hallway with me last night, and you're plucking me.... "Tony Lee's" lawyer, but you're plucking me. I'm paying for it.... Where does it end? Gambino Crime Family? This is the Shargel, Cutler and who do you call it Crime Family.

771 F.Supp. at 555. Gotti thus demonstrated that he was incurring the legal fees for representation of others. As support for disqualification, the government indicated that it would introduce the testimony of Michael Coiro, who would testify that he had paid nothing to Cutler and another attorney for their services to him, presumably because Gotti paid for his defense.

Cutler's role as house counsel to the Gambinos raised a credible issue of the ethical propriety of his representation of Gotti in this case. An attorney cannot properly serve two masters, and the evidence before the district court indicated that Cutler had represented the Gambino Family as a whole. Moreover, Cutler's status as house counsel was potentially part of the proof of the Gambino criminal enterprise. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in disqualifying Cutler on this basis, considering the volume of proof of Cutler's proximity to the affairs of the Gambino Crime Family offered by the government in this case.

An even stronger basis for disqualification, however, was the possibility that Cutler would function in his representational capacity as an unsworn witness for Gotti. An attorney acts as an unsworn witness when his relationship to his client results in his having first-hand knowledge of the events presented at trial. If the attorney is in a position to be a witness, ethical codes may require him to withdraw his representation. See Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102(A) (1992).

Even if the attorney is not called, however, he can still be disqualified, since his performance as an advocate can be impaired by his relationship to the events in question. For example, the attorney may be constrained from making certain arguments on behalf of his client because of his own involvement, or may be tempted to minimize his own conduct at the expense of his client. Moreover, his role as advocate may give his client an unfair advantage, because the attorney can subtly impart to the jury his first-hand knowledge of the events without having to swear an oath or be subject to cross examination. SeeUnited States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 34-35 (2d Cir.1984) (requiring disqualification where attorney would be essentially acting as both an advocate and a witness); United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1075 (2d Cir.1982) (upholding disqualification where an attorney would act as an unsworn witness for defendant); Castellano, 610 F.Supp. at 1167 (finding that attorney's appearance at counsel table would itself distort the factfinding process).

This is different from the situation in Wheat, since the conflict in Wheat--multiple representation--was a conflict inuring to the detriment of the accused. In such a case, waiver by the accused of the conflict can conceivably alleviate the constitutional defect, so long as the representation by counsel does not seriously compromise the integrity of the judicial process. When an attorney is an unsworn witness, however, the detriment is to the government, since the defendant gains an unfair advantage, and to the court, since the factfinding process is impaired. Waiver by the defendant is ineffective in curing the impropriety in such situations, since he is not the party prejudiced. SeeCunningham, 672 F.2d at 1074-75.

The district court disqualified Cutler partially on the ground that his representation of Gotti would place him in the role of such an unsworn witness. The clearest support for this finding was Cutler's presence during the Ravenite Apartment discussions taped by the government. The government was legitimately concerned that, when Cutler argued before the jury for a particular interpretation of the tapes, his interpretation would be given added credibility due to his presence in the room when the statements were made. This would have given Gotti an unfair advantage, since Cutler would not have had to take an oath in presenting his interpretation, but could merely frame it in the form of legal argument.

Gotti argues, however, that the district court erred in disqualifying Cutler where the government had no intention of calling Cutler. He also maintains that Cutler's presence and participation on the government's tapes could have been redacted to eliminate references to and statements by Cutler, thereby eliminating the unsworn witness problem. The first contention is meritless, since the district court explicitly and correctly noted that "whether the government will or will not call ... Cutler ... has no significance for this motion." 771 F.Supp. at 562. The second contention is equally unavailing, since the district court explicitly found that redaction of the tapes would have eviscerated the government's case. We are not in a position to second-guess the district court's clearly supported factual findings on review. Moreover, we agree with the district court that the government's case should not be unfairly impaired so that an accused can continue with conflicted counsel.

The unsworn witness problem arises not only in relation to the Ravenite tapes, but to other grounds cited by the district court in support of disqualification. For example, the court found that Gotti's references to Cutler's acceptance of fees "under the table" were relevant to the government's case on the tax fraud count. Had Cutler argued Gotti's defense to that count, he would not only have had a conflict of interest but he would have been arguing as to events in which he was allegedly involved.

We are aware that disqualification is a drastic remedy to the unsworn witness problem. We are also, however, cognizant that this is an unusual case, in that Cutler had allegedly entangled himself to an extraordinary degree in the activities of the Gambino Crime Family: he is recorded on government tapes when discussions of allegedly illegal activity took place; he is allegedly involved in the tax fraud count against Gotti; his role as house counsel could be used to prove the criminal enterprise; and his representation of government witnesses caused a conflict with his representation of Gotti. Although we are cognizant of the right of the accused to secure representation, we are also conscious of the institutional interest in protecting the integrity of the judicial process. If an attorney will not perform his ethical duty, it is up to the courts to perform it for him. Bruce Cutler had no place representing John Gotti in this case, and the district court properly determined that he should be disqualified.

Locascio challenges the district court's disqualification of attorney George Santangelo, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in disqualifying Santangelo. Santangelo was disqualified for much the same reasons as Cutler: (1) because Santangelo was house counsel to the Gambino Crime Family; and (2) because Santangelo could conceivably become an unsworn witness if he represented Locascio.

On January 6, 1992, thirteen months after Locascio's indictment, Santangelo filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Locascio. The government quickly moved for disqualification. The motion was argued on January 17, 1992 and granted four days later. United States v. Gotti, 782 F.Supp. 737 (E.D.N.Y.1992).

The district court began by reviewing the evidence presented by the government that Santangelo was house counsel to the Gambino Family. The court noted that Gravano was expected to testify that, after arraignment, Gotti had stated to him that Gotti was going to assign Santangelo to represent either Gravano or Locascio. Gravano was also expected to testify that Gotti controlled the actions of attorneys answerable to him, in the interests not of the individual clients but of the Gambino Family. The court found that this testimony would support the inference that Santangelo was "answerable to Gotti," which was probative of the charged RICO enterprise. The court also reviewed intercepted conversations presented by the government that supported Gravano's allegations that Gotti controlled Santangelo. The district court concluded:

Santangelo's relationship to Gotti and to Gotti's associates is properly the object of proof by the government in its case in chief. But, as with Cutler, ... Santangelo cannot present himself as counsel for the defendants when his relationship to those defendants is itself an issue under the consideration of the jury. His presence at counsel table could readily serve as a signal to the jury that the court discounts the government's proof on this point--that the court does not believe this evidence. Moreover, Santangelo could not argue against the existence of the charged RICO enterprise without becoming an unsworn witness.

Id. at 741.

We have already discussed the applicable law on the issue of counsel disqualification. See supra Sec. I.A. Locascio offers the same arguments that we rejected in our discussion of the disqualification of Bruce Cutler. Simply put, Locascio recharacterizes the record and disagrees that the government proffered evidence to the district court that merits disqualification of Santangelo.

As in our discussion of Cutler's disqualification, we review the district court's rulings only for an abuse of discretion. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163-64, 108 S.Ct. at 1699; Stewart, 870 F.2d at 856. Here, the district court specifically found that Gravano's testimony and the intercepted conversations substantiated the argument that Santangelo was house counsel. This raised two serious conflicts of interest: first, that Santangelo's previous representations of Gambino Family members would be used to prove the existence of the enterprise; and second, that his loyalty to Locascio would be compromised by his relationship to Gotti. These findings were supported in the record, and Locascio's recharacterization of the record does not compel us to reverse them.

As discussed previously, Locascio's Sixth Amendment concerns are not the only interests at stake here: the district court has an independent duty to protect the integrity of the judicial process, and the government has its own fair trial interests that should not be unnecessarily impaired so that Locascio can enjoy the services of ethically compromised counsel. This is especially true in these circumstances, since Locascio suffered no prejudice from the disqualification of Santangelo. Although actual prejudice is not determinative of the propriety of a disqualification, it is worth noting that this is not a case where an attorney worked on a case for months only to be disqualified on the eve of trial. Santangelo filed his first notice of appearance on January 6, 1992, and was disqualified fifteen days later. Locascio cannot argue this disqualification impacted his ability to prepare for trial.

Although disqualification is a drastic measure, the district court is in the best position to evaluate what is needed to ensure a fair trial. Here, the district court made careful findings of fact on each disqualification, and supported its decisions with well-reasoned opinions. We conclude that the district court properly exercised its discretion in disqualifying Bruce Cutler and George Santangelo.II. Admission of Expert Testimony

Gotti and Locascio both contend that the district court committed reversible error in admitting the testimony of government experts to assist the jury in understanding the structure of organized crime families. More specifically, they principally challenge various facets of FBI Agent Lewis Schiliro's testimony, arguing that: (1) Schiliro's testimony was too broad and went beyond the scope of expert testimony; (2) he was not properly qualified as an expert; (3) his use of hearsay and un-introduced evidence to substantiate his opinions violated Fed.R.Evid. 703, as well as the Confrontation Clause; and (4) the availability of similar testimony by an accomplice witness rendered his testimony unnecessary.

At trial, Special Agent Schiliro testified at great length on the nature and function of organized crime families, imparting the structure of such families and disclosing the "rules" of the La Cosa Nostra. For example, Schiliro testified that a "boss" must approve all illegal activity and especially all murders, and that the functions of the "consigliere" and "underboss" are only "advisory" to the "boss." In addition, as part of his testimony, he interpreted the numerous surreptitiously taped conversations introduced into evidence, and identified the individuals speaking by their voices. Schiliro specifically named John Gotti as the boss of the alleged Gambino Family and Gravano as the consigliere. Additionally, he identified, together with their titles, ranks, and functions, numerous members and associates of the Gambino Family and other criminal organizations. When pressed about his sources for individuals' titles, ranks, and functions, Schiliro admitted that his sources of information were not necessarily before the court.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert is permitted to testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise when that testimony would "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed.R.Evid. 702. In determining whether such evidence will assist the jury, the district court must make a " 'common sense inquiry' " into " 'whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute.' " Fed.R.Evid. 702, advisory committee note, (quoting Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand.L.Rev. 414, 418 (1952)), quoted inUnited States v. Onumonu, 967 F.2d 782, 788 (2d Cir.1992). In applying this standard, the district court has broad discretion regarding the admission of expert testimony, and this Court will sustain the admission unless "manifestly erroneous." United States v. DiDomenico, 985 F.2d 1159, 1163 (2d Cir.1993); United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 887 (2d Cir.1992).

Gotti and Locascio contend that the district court erred in admitting Schiliro's testimony for several reasons. The thrust of their argument is that Schiliro did not actually testify as an expert, but rather was simply a conduit allowing inadmissible evidence and arguments to flow into the court. They assert that Schiliro's testimony was too broad, sweeping, and unsubstantiated to be admissible. We will consider their specific points in turn.

The defendants-appellants challenge the admission of expert testimony on the inner workings of the Gambino Family as being outside the scope of expert testimony. We have, however, previously upheld the use of exper