Full opinion text
TABLE OF CONTENTS Facts..........................................................................250 The Redacted Superseding Indictment.......................................250 A. Background...........................................................250 B. The Defendants.......................................................251 1. Giampa..........................................................251 2. Vittorio..........................................................251 3. Gaito............................................................252 4. McManus ........................................................252 5. Segarra..........................................................252 6. Porco............................................................252 7. Capra............................................................252 C. Count One: Conspiracy to Engage in Racketeering......................252 D. Count Two: Substantive RICO.........................................253 E. Count Three: Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics........................253 F. Count Four: Distribution of Heroin....................................254 G. Count Five: Conspiracy to Import Narcotics............................254 H. Count Six: Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms.............................254 I. Count Seven: Transfer of Machine Gun.................................254 J. Counts Eight and Nine: Selling Firearms to a Felon....................255 K. Count Ten: Shipping Gun with Altered Serial Number...................255 L. Count Eleven: Transferring Unregistered Machine Gun..................255 M. Count Twelve: Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property.....255 N. Count Thirteen: Transportation of Stolen Property......................256 O. Count Fourteen: Possession of Stolen Property..........................256 P. Count Fifteen: Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles..................256 Q. Count Sixteen: Conspiracy to Establish Gambling Operations.............257 R. Count Seventeen: Conspiracy to Make Extortionate Loan................257 S. Count Eighteen: Conspiracy to Deal in Counterfeit Money...............257 T. Count Nineteen: Conspiracy to Conceal Evidence........................257 U. Count Twenty: Attempt to Conceal Evidence............................258 V. Counts Twenty-One Through Forty-Six: Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering........................................................258 W. The Jury Verdict .....................................................258 1. Giampa..........................................................258 2. Vittorio..........................................................259 3. Gaito............................................................259 4. McManus ........................................................259 5. Segarra..........................................................259 6. Porco............................................................259 7. Capra............................................................259 Discussion......................................................................259 I. Pre-Trial Matters .........................................................259 A. Severance ............................................................262 1. Joinder Pursuant to Rule 8........................................262 2. Severance Pursuant to Rule 14....................................264 3. Severance From the Trial of McManus.............................267 B. Motion to Dismiss the Redacted Superseding Indictment for “Outrageous” Government Conduct .........................................270 C. Motions to Dismiss the Redacted Superseding Indictment for Failure to Properly Allege the Crimes Charged..................................270 D. Motions to Strike Surplusage...........................................271 E. Motion by McManus to Suppress the Second Redacted McManus Statement ....................................................'...........272 1. Miranda.........................................................273 2. Voluntariness of Statement........................................274 F. In Limine Motions to Suppress the Second Redacted McManus Statement ...............................................................277 G. Motion to Dismiss the Redacted Superseding Indictment for Failure to Bring McManus Before a Magistrate Judge Without “Unnecessary Delay” .............................................................277 H. Motion to Suppress the Fruits of the Lanteri Wiretap...................278 I. Requests for a Bill of Particulars ......................................278 J. Pretrial Disclosure of Brady and Giglio and Jeneks Act Material.........280 1. Brady Material...................................................280 2. Giglio Material ...................................................281 3. Jencks Act Material...............................................282 K. FRE 404(b) Material..................................................282 1. Timing of FRE 404(b) Disclosure..................................283 2. Pre-Trial Determination of Admissibility of FRE 404(b) Evidence.....283 L. Co-Conspirator Statements.............................................284 1. Pre-Trial Disclosure of Co-Conspirator Statements..................284 2. Hearing on Admissibility of Co-Conspirator Statements..............286 M. Disclosure of the Identity of Confidential Informants.....................286 N. Access to Grand Jury Materials........................................287 O. Date Certain for Production of Transcripts..............................289 P. Preservation of Rough Notes and Reports ..............................289 Q. Request for Leave to File Additional Motions...........................290 R. Reciprocal Discovery ..................................................290 S. Jury Selection Procedures..............................................291 T. Hearings on Objections to Audio and Video Taped Evidence..............291 U. In Limine Motions Concerning the Admissibility of 404(b) Material.....293 1. Past Charged and Uncharged Criminal Activity.....................294 2. Accidental Shooting of Gaito.......................................295 3. Racial Epithets...................................................296 4. Drug Use........................................................296 II. Trial Motions and Objections...............................................297 A. Objections to Explanation of Taped References..........................297 B. Motions for Mistrial...................................................301 1. Giampa’s Motions for Mistrial......................................302 2. Vittorio’s Motions for Mistrial......................................304 3. Segarra’s Motion for Mistrial......................................307 4. Capra’s Motion for Mistrial........................................309 C. Gaito’s Request for an Entrapment Defense Charge.....................309 1. The Entrapment Defense..........................................310 a. Inducement...................................................310 b. Non-Predisposition............................................311 2. Inappropriateness of an Entrapment Charge in the Instant Case.....311 3. Gaito’s Initiation of Contact With Sabol ............................316 4. Motion for Reconsideration........................................317 D. Motions for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule 29(a) ....................319 1. Count One: Conspiracy to Engage in Racketeering..................320 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Count One........................321 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count One........................321 c. Gaito’s Rule 29 Motion on Count One ..........................321 d. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on Count One.......................322 e. Segarra’s Rule 29 Motion on Count One........................322 f. Porco’s Rule 29 Motion on Count One..........................322 g. Capra’s Rule 29 Motion on Count One..........................322 2. Count Two: Substantive RICO ....................................325 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Two........................325 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Two........................326 c. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on Count Two.......................326 The Narcotics Counts (Counts Three through Five)......................326 3. Count Three: Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics....................326 a. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Three.......................327 b. Gaito’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Three.........................327 c. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on Count Three......................327 4. Count Four: Distribution of Heroin................................328 a. Gaito’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Four..........................328 b. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on Count Four......................328 5. Count Five: Conspiracy to Import Narcotics........................329 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Five........................329 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Five........................329 c. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on Count Five.......................329 d. Porco’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Five..........................329 e. Capra’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Five.........................329 The Firearms Counts (Counts Six through Eleven)......................330 6. Count Six: Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms.........................330 7. Count Seven: Transfer of Machine Gun............................331 8. Count Eight: Selling Firearm to a Felon...........................331 9. Count Nine: Selling Firearm to a Felon...........................331 10. Count Ten: Shipping Gun with Altered Serial Number..............331 11. Count Eleven: Transferring Unregistered Machine Gun..............331 a. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on the Firearms Counts...............332 b. Gaito’s Rule 29 Motion on the Firearm Counts..................332 e. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on Firearms Counts..................332 d. Segarra’s Rule 29 Motion on Firearms Counts ..................332 The Stolen Fur Counts (Counts Twelve Through Fourteen)...............336 12. Count Twelve: Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property.....336 13. Count Thirteen: Transportation of Stolen Property..................336 14. Count Fourteen: Possession of Stolen Property.....................336 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on the Stolen Fur Counts.............337 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on the Stolen Fur Counts.............337 c. Gaito’s Rule 29 Motion on the Stolen Fur Counts...............337 15. Count Fifteen: Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles.............338 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Fifteen.....................338 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Fifteen .....................339 c. Segarra’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Fifteen.....................339 d. Porco and Capra’s Rule 29 Motions on Count Fifteen............339 16. Count Sixteen: Conspiracy to Establish Gambling Operations ........340 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Sixteen.....................340 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Sixteen.....................340 c. Porco’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Sixteen.......................340 d. Capra’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Sixteen.......................340 17. Count Seventeen: Conspiracy to Make Extortionate Loan............341 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Seventeen...................341 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Seventeen...................342 18. Count Eighteen: Conspiracy to Deal in Counterfeit Money..........343 Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Count Eighteen....................343 The Concealing Evidence Counts (Counts Nineteen and Twenty)..........344 19. Count Nineteen: Conspiracy to Conceal Evidence...................344 20. Count Twenty: Attempt to Conceal Evidence.......................344 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on Counts Nineteen and Twenty.....344 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on Counts Nineteen and Twenty.....344 c. McManus’ Ride 29 Motion on Counts Nineteen and Twenty.....344 The Travel/Telephone Counts (Counts Twenty-One through Forty-Six).....345 21. Counts Twenty-One Through Forty-Six: Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering.............................................345 a. Giampa’s Rule 29 Motion on the Travel/Telephone Counts........346 b. Vittorio’s Rule 29 Motion on the Travel/Telephone Counts........346 c. Gaito’s Rule 29 Motion on the Travel/Telephone Counts..........346 d. McManus’ Rule 29 Motion on the Travel/Telephone Counts.....346 e. Segarra’s Rule 29 Motion on the Travel/Telephone Counts........347 f. Poreo’s Rule 29 Motion on the Travel/Telephone Counts..........347 III. Post Trial Motions.........................................................348 A. Declaration of Mistrial as to Deadlocked Counts.........................348 B. Motions for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule 29(c).....................353 C. Motions for Bail Pending Sentencing....................................356 1. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)...............................................357 a. Risk of Flight................................................358 b. Danger to the Community.....................................358 2. Inappropriateness of Bad in the Instant Case.......................358 a. Giampa.......................................................358 b. Gaito.........................................................360 c. McManus.....................................................360 d. Porco and Capra..............................................361 Conclusion......................................................................368 OPINION LECHNER, District Judge. A fifty-one count indictment (the “Indictment”) was filed on 10 August 1994 against defendants Joseph Giampa (“Giampa”), Gennaro Vittorio (a/k/a “Gerry Giampa”) (‘Vittorio”), Joseph Gaito (“Gaito”), James Mc-Manus (“McManus”), Guy Fatato (“Fatato”) , Benjamin Segarra (“Segarra”), Louis Dorval (a/k/a “Louie”) (“Dorval”), Elliot Porco (“Porco”) and John Capra (a/k/a “Johnny Hooks”) (“Capra”). The Indictment charged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), (5), 1962(d), conspiracy to import and distribute heroin and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 846, distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, conspiracy to deal in firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4), (d)(1), (k), 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e), dealing in firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4), (d)(1), (k), 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e), conspiracy to steal and transport stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 659, 2314, 2315, transportation and possession of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2314, 2315, conspiracy to transport stolen vehicles, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, conspiracy to establish an illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. § 1955, conspiracy to make an extortionate loan, 18 U.S.C. §§ 892, 2, conspiracy to deal in counterfeit money, 18 U.S.C. § 473, conspiracy to conceal evidence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b), 2, and travel and telephone use in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, 2. On 8 February 1995, a superseding indictment (the “Superseding Indictment”) was filed. The Superseding Indictment eliminated Dorval who is deceased. Aside from eliminating references to Dorval, the Superseding Indictment is identical to the Indictment in most respects. The United States (the “Government”) submitted a redacted version of the Superseding Indictment (the “Redacted Superseding Indictment”), on 12 July 1995, which eliminated references to Fatato. This opinion addresses the rulings made prior to, during the course of and after trial in this matter. Facts The Redacted Superseding Indictment A. Background According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment, the Lucchese Crime Family (the “Lucchese Crime Family”) “was a wholly illegal entity consisting of individuals associated in fact as an enterprise,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961(4), “which was engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce.” Count 1, ¶ 1(a). The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges the Lucchese Crime Family was a criminal enterprise which was highly structured and had a well defined chain of command. Count 1, ¶ 1(b). The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that at the top of the Lucchese Crime Family's hierarchy was the “Boss” who exercised absolute control over the operation of the Lucchese Crime Family. Id. The Redacted Superseding Indictment further alleges that subordinate to the Boss were the “Underboss,” and “Consigliere” or “Advisor.” Id. Below the Boss, Underboss and Consigliere were “Captains,” also known as “Capo-regimes” or “Capos” or “Skippers.” Id. According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment each of the Captains was in charge of one or more groups or “Crews” of individual “Soldiers” or “members of the [Lucchese Crime Family] who had been formally initiated or ‘made’ as members of the enterprise.” Id. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges these Soldiers then recruited and controlled the activities of various associates, each of whom sought the protection and economic benefits such association afforded. Id. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges the object and purpose of the Lucchese Crime Family [were] to make money for those associated with it through the conduct of diverse criminal activities including, but not limited to, loansharking, extortion, illegal gambling, and trafficking in stolen property, narcotics and firearms. Id., ¶ 1(c). Additionally, the Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges individuals associated with the Lucchese Crime Family were required to pay to their superiors a percentage of the proceeds from criminal activity in which they or their subordinates participated. Id. B. The Defendants 1. Giampa According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment, Giampa “was a made member and a high ranking ‘[C]aporegime’ in the Lucchese Crime Family.” Id., ¶ 2(a). The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges he was the leader of a group of “made” members and associates of the Lucchese Crime Family (the “Giampa Crew”). Id. The Redacted Superseding Indictment further alleges Giampa reported to the Boss and Under-boss of the Lucchese Crime Family “for any transgression against the fundamental rules of the [Lucchese Crime Family] by those members below him in the chain of command.” Id. The Redacted Superseding Indictment charges Giampa with violating RICO, Counts 1, 2, Conspiracy to Import Narcotics, Count 5, Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property, Count 12, Transporting Stolen Property, Count 13, Possession of Stolen Property, Count 14, Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles, Count 15, Conspiracy to Establish a Gambling Operation, Count 16, Conspiracy to Make an Extortionate Loan, Count 17, Conspiracy to Conceal Evidence, Count 19, Attempt to Conceal Evidence, Count 20, and Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering. Counts 34, 36, 37, 40, 42. 2. Vittorio The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges Vittorio was associated with Giampa and was a member of the Giampa Crew. Count 1, ¶ 2(b). According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment, Vittorio, who reported directly to Giampa, supervised other associates including Gaito, McManus and Fatato. Id. Vittorio is charged in the Redacted Superseding Indictment with violating RICO, Counts 1,2, Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics, Count 3, Distribution of Heroin, Count 4, Conspiracy to Import Narcotics, Count 5, Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms, Count 6, Transfer of Machine Gun, Count 7, Selling Firearms to a Felon, Counts 8, 9, Shipping a Gun with an Altered Serial Number, Count 10, Transferring an Unregistered Machine Gun, Count 11, Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property, Count 12, Transporting Stolen Property, Count 13, Possession of Stolen Property, Count 14, Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles, Count 15, Conspiracy to Establish a Gambling Operation, Count 16, Conspiracy to Make an Extortionate Loan, Count 17, Conspiracy to Deal in Counterfeit Money, Count 18, Conspiracy to Conceal Evidence, Count 19, Attempt to Conceal Evidence, Count 20, and Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering. Counts 21-27, 29, 30, 37, 43. 3. Gaito The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges Gaito was associated with Giampa, to whom he reported, and Vittorio. Count 1, ¶ 2(c). Gaito is charged in the Redacted Superseding Indictment with violating RICO, Count 1, Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics, Count 3, Distribution of Heroin, Count 4, Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms, Count 6, Transfer of Machine Gun, Count 7, Selling Firearms to a Felon, Counts 8, 9, Shipping a Gun with an Altered Serial Number, Count 10, Transferring an Unregistered Machine Gun, Count 11, Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property, Count 12, and Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering. Counts 22-25, 27. 4. McManus According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment, McManus was associated with Vittorio, to whom he reported, Porco and Capra. Count 1, 12(d). The Redacted Superseding Indictment charges McManus with violating RICO, Count 1, 2, Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics, Count 3, Distribution of Heroin, Count 4, Conspiracy to Import Narcotics, Count 5, Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms, Count 6, Transfer of Machine Gun, Count 7, Selling Firearms to a Felon, Counts 8, 9, Shipping a Gun with an Altered Serial Number, Count 10, Transferring an Unregistered Machine Gun, Count 11, Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property, Count 12, Transporting Stolen Property, Count 13, Possession of Stolen Property, Count 14, Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles, Count 15, Conspiracy to Establish a Gambling Operation, Count 16, Conspiracy to Conceal Evidence, Count 19, Attempt to Conceal Evidence, Count 20, and Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering. Counts 27-32, 37, 38, 41, 44r46. 5. Segarra The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges Segarra was associated with Porco, to whom he reported, McManus and Capra. Count 1, 12(e). Segarra is charged in the Redacted Superseding Indictment with violating RICO, Count 1, Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms, Count 6, Transfer of Machine Gun, Count 7, Selling Firearms to a Felon, Count 9, Transferring an Unregistered Machine Gun, Count 11, Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles, Count 15, Conspiracy to Establish a Gambling Operation, Count 16, and Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering. Count 33. 6. Porco The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges Porco, who reported to Capra, was an associate of the Lucchese Crime Family and a member of “a different crew than the Giampa Crew.” Count 1, 12(f). Porco is charged in the Redacted Superseding Indictment with violating RICO, Count 1, Conspiracy to Import Narcotics, Count 5, Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles, Count 15, Conspiracy to Establish a Gambling Operation, Count 16, and Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering. Counts 29, 30, 33, 35, 39. 7. Capra According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment, Capra was a “made” member of the Lucchese Crime Family and “a member of a different crew than the Giampa Crew.” Count 1, 12(g). Capra is charged in the Redacted Superseding Indictment with violating RICO, Count 1, Conspiracy to Import Narcotics, Count 5, Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles, Count 15, and Conspiracy to Establish a Gambling Operation. Count 16. C. Count One: Conspiracy to Engage in Racketeering The Redacted Superseding Indictment charges that from on or about 21 October 1992, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, the Defendants, employed by and associated with Lucchese Crime Family, an enterprise which was engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce, did knowingly and wilfully conspire with each other and with others to conduct and to partieipate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Lucchese Crime Family through a pattern of racketeering activity.... Count 1, ¶ 3. Manner and Means According to the Redacted Superseding Indictment, in order to extend the power and influence of the Lucchese Crime Family and to increase profits, the Defendants took steps to expand the geographical control of the Lucchese Crime Family into New Jersey. Count 1, ¶ 5. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges this was done by, among other things, “the establishment of, and attempts to establish, a multi-kilogram heroin and cocaine distribution network!,] contacts for the sale and distribution of stolen property, firearms and counterfeit money!,] an import-export company for the importation of narcotics!,] and exportation of stolen vehicles and illegal gambling operations.” Id. Count One alleges Defendants “did agree, together, with each other and with other co-conspirators, that members and associates of the Lucchese Crime Family would commit and aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure and willfully cause the commission of at least two Racketeering [a]cts,” as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Id., ¶ 160. Count One describes eight acts of racketeering committed by Defendants: (1) a conspiracy to import and distribute narcotics, 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 846, (2) the distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2, (3) a scheme to steal and transport stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 659, 2314, 2315, (4) a scheme to export stolen vehicles, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, (5) a scheme to establish an illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. § 1955, 1955(b)(1), (6) a conspiracy to establish import/export company through extortionate loan, 18 U.S.C. §§ 892, 2, (7) a scheme to deal in counterfeit money, 18 U.S.C. § 473, and (8) a scheme to conceal evidence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b), 2. Id., ¶¶ 161-68. D. Count Two: Substantive RICO Count Two re-alleges the “allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 through 159, 161 through 163, 166 and 168 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference----” Count 2, ¶ 1. Count Two charges that from on or about 21 October 1992, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio and Mc-Manus employed by and associated with the Lucchese Crime Family, an enterprise which was engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce, did knowingly and wilfully conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Lucchese Crime Family through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(1) and (5)____ Count 2, ¶ 2. Count Two alleges Giampa, Vittorio and McManus “committed and aided and abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured and willfully caused the commission of the Racketeering [a]cts set forth below.” Id., ¶ 3. Count Two lists five racketeering acts, which are described in Count One, allegedly committed by Giampa, Vittorio and McManus in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c): (1) a conspiracy to import and distribute heroin and cocaine, (2) the distribution of heroin, (3) a scheme to steal and transport stolen property, (4) a scheme to establish import/export company through extortionate loan, and (5) a scheme to conceal evidence. Id., ¶3. E. Count Three: Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics Count Three re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 3, ¶ 1. Count Three charges that from on or about 21 October 1992, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito and McManus knowingly and intentionally did combine, conspire, and agree with each other, and with others, to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, more than 5 kilograms of heroin, a Schedule I narcotic drug controlled substance, and more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, a Schedule II narcotic drug controlled substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1). In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. Count 3, ¶2. F. Count Four: Distribution of Heroin Count Four re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 4, ¶ 1. Count Four charges that on or about 22 November 1993, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito and McManus “knowingly and intentionally did possess, with intent to distribute, one ounce of heroin, a Schedule I narcotic drug controlled substance” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count 4, ¶2. G. Count Five: Conspiracy to Import Narcotics Count Five re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 5, ¶ 1. Count Five charges that on or about 21 October 1992, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio, McManus, Poreo and Capra knowingly and intentionally did combine, conspire, and agree with each other, and with others, to import more than 5 kilograms of heroin, a Schedule I narcotic drug controlled substance, and more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, a Schedule II narcotic drug controlled substance, from a place outside the United States, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 952. In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 963. Count 5, ¶2. H. Count Six: Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms Count Six re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 6, ¶ 1. Count Six charges that on or about 21 October 1992, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito, McManus, and Segarra knowingly and willfully did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other, to: a. transport in interstate commerce a fully automatic RPB Industries .9mm submachine gun, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(a)(4); b. sell and otherwise dispose of a firearm and ammunition, to a person, knowing, and having reasonable cause to believe that such person has been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(d)(1); c. knowingly transport, ship and receive in interstate commerce a firearm which had the manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated and altered, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(k); d. to transfer unregistered firearms in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 5841, namely a fully automatic RPB Industries .9mm submachine gun and silencer, contrary to Title 26, United States Code, Section 5861(e). Count 6, ¶ 2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that in furtherance of the conspiracy Vittorio, Gaito, McManus and Segarra committed nineteen overt acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere. Id. at 51. The Redacted Superseding Indictment lists the overt acts, each with a corresponding paragraph in Count One that describes it: (i.e. the first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶23, the second overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 24, ... the nineteenth overt act is described in Count 1, ¶41.) Id. I. Count Seven: Transfer of Machine Cun Count Seven re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 7, ¶ 1. Count Seven charges that on or about 15 December 1993, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito, McManus, and Segarra “knowingly and willfully did transport in interstate commerce a fully automatic RPB Industries ,9mm submachine gun. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(a)(4) and 2.” Count 7, ¶2. J. Counts Eight and Nine: Selling Firearms to a Felon Counts Eight and Nine re-allege the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference----” Counts 8-9, ¶ 1. Counts Eight and Nine charge that on or about the dates listed below, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito, McManus and Segarra “knowingly and willfully did sell and otherwise dispose of a firearm and ammunition to a person, knowing, and having reasonable cause to believe, that such person has been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Counts 8-9, ¶2. Count Eight alleges that on 13 December 1993, Vittorio, Gaito and Segarra sold a Rossi .38 caliber revolver and hollow tip bullets. Id. Count Nine alleges that on 15 December 1993, Vittorio, Gaito, McManus and Segarra sold a RPB Industries .9mm submachine gun, ammunition and a silencer. Id. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that these sales were in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(1) and (2). Id. K. Count Ten: Shipping Gun with Altered Serial Number Count Ten re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference.... ” Count 10, ¶ 1. Count Ten charges that on or about 13 December 1993, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito and McManus “did knowingly and willfully transport, ship and receive in interstate commerce a firearm, namely a Rossi .38 caliber revolver, which had the manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated and altered. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(k) and 2.” Count 10, ¶2. L. Count Eleven: Transferring Unregistered Machine Gun Count Eleven re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] ineorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 11, ¶ 1. Count Eleven charges that on or about 15 December 1993, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio, Gaito, McManus and Segarra “knowingly and willfully did transfer unregistered firearms in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 5841, namely a fully automatic RPB Industries .9mm submachine gun and silencer. In violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 5861(e) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.” Count 11, ¶2. M. Count Twelve: Conspiracy to Steal and Transport Stolen Property Count Twelve re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 12, ¶ 1. Count Twelve charges that on or about 21 October 1992, through in or about January 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio, Gaito and McManus knowingly and willfully did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with others, to: a. embezzle, steal and unlawfully take and carry away and conceal, and by fraud and deception did obtain, from a storage facility, with intent to convert to his own use, goods and chattels moving as, and which were a part of and which constituted, an interstate shipment of freight, express and property, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 659. b. transport, transmit and transfer in interstate commerce goods, wares and merchandise having a value of more than $5,000, knowing that the goods, wares and merchandise was stolen, converted and taken by fraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2314. c. receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell and dispose of goods, wares and merchandise having a value of more than $5,000, which have crossed a [s]tate boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, and knowing that the goods, wares and merchandise was stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2315 and 2. Count 12, ¶2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment lists twenty-one overt acts committed by Giampa, Vittorio, Gaito and McManus in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere. Id. at 57. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that these overt acts were committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and were “[i]n furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to effect its objects.” Id. Each overt act is listed with a corresponding paragraph in Count One that describes it: (i.e. the first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶42, the second overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 43, ... the twenty-first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 62). Id. N. Count Thirteen: Transportation of Stolen Property Count Thirteen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference----” Count 13, ¶ 1. Count Thirteen charges that from on or about 22 December 1993, through in or about January 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio and McManus knowingly and willfully did transport, transmit and transfer in interstate commerce goods, wares and merchandise having a value of more than $5,000, namely, fur coats from Filenes Basement, knowing that [the] fur coats were stolen, converted and taken by fraud. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2314 and 2. Count 13, ¶2. O. Count Fourteen: Possession of Stolen Property Count Fourteen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference----” Count 14, ¶ 1. Count Fourteen charges that from on or about 22 December 1993, through in or about January 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio and McManus knowingly and willfully did receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell and dispose of goods, wares and merchandise having a value of more than $5,000, which have crossed a [s]tate boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted and taken, and knowing that the goods, wares and merchandise was stolen, unlawfully converted and taken. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2315 and 2. Count 14, ¶2. P. Count Fifteen: Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Vehicles Count Fifteen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference----” Count 15, ¶ 1. Count Fifteen charges that from on or about 6 January 1994, through in or about January 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio, Mc-Manus, Segarra, Porco and Capra “knowingly and willfully did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with others, to transport, in interstate and foreign commerce, motor vehicles, knowing that the motor vehicles were stolen, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2312.” Count 15, ¶2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment lists twelve overt acts committed by Giampa, Vittorio, McManus, Segarra, Porco and Capra in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere. Id. at 60-61. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that these overt acts were committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and were “[i]n furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to effect its objects.” Id. Each overt act is listed with a corresponding paragraph in Count One that describes it: (i.e. the first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶79, the second overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 80, ... the twelfth overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 90). Id. Q. Count Sixteen: Conspiracy to Establish Gambling Operations Count Sixteen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] ineorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 16, ¶ 1. Count Sixteen charges that from on or about 20 December 1993, through on or about 11 August 1993, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio, McManus, Segarra, Porco and Capra “knowingly and willfully did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with others, to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all of and part of an illegal gambling business,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1955(b)(1), and contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1955. Count 16, ¶2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment lists twenty-eight overt acts committed by Giampa, Vittorio, McManus, Segarra, Porco and Capra in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere. Id. at 62-63. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that these overt acts were committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and were “[i]n furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to effect its objects.” Id. Each overt act is listed with a corresponding paragraph in Count One that describes it: (i.e. the first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 91, the second overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 92, ... the twenty-eighth overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 118). Id. R. Count Seventeen: Conspiracy to Make Extortionate Loan Count Seventeen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference----” Count 17, ¶ 1. Count Seventeen charges that on or about 24 January 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa and Vittorio “knowingly and willfully did conspire to make a $10,000 extortionate extension of credit. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 892.” Count 17, ¶2. S. Count Eighteen: Conspiracy to Deal in Counterfeit Money Count Eighteen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 18, ¶ 1. Count Eighteen charges that from on or about 24 January 1994, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Vittorio knowingly and willfully did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with others, to buy, sell, exchange, transfer, receive and deliver false, forged, counterfeited and altered obligations of the United States with the intent that such obligations be passed, published and used as true and genuine, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 473. Count 18, ¶2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment lists four overt acts committed by Vittorio in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere. Id. at 65. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that these overt acts were committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and were “[i]n furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to effect its objects.” Id. Each overt act is listed with a corresponding paragraph in Count One that describes it: (i.e. the first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 143, the second overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 144, ... the fourth overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 146). Id. T. Count Nineteen: Conspiracy to Conceal Evidence Count Nineteen re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference____” Count 19, ¶ 1. Count Nineteen charges that from on or about 25 January 1994, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio and McManus did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with others, to corruptly persuade Richard Sabol [“Sabol”], and engage in misleading conduct toward Sabol, with intent to 1) influence, delay and prevent Sabol’s testimony in an official proceeding; 2) cause and induce Sabol to conceal an object, namely, $10,000 in U.S. currency, with intent to impair the integrity and availability of the currency for use in an official proceeding; and 3) hinder, delay, and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer of information relating to the commission of a Federal offense, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b). Count 19, ¶ 2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment lists thirteen overt acts committed by Giampa, Vittorio and McManus in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere. Id. at 66-67. The Redacted Superseding Indictment alleges that these overt acts were committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and were “[i]n furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to effect its objects.” Id. at 66. Each overt act is listed with a corresponding paragraph in Count One that describes it: (i.e. the first overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 147, the second overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 148, ... the thirteenth overt act is described in Count 1, ¶ 159). Id. at 67. U. Count Twenty: Attempt to Conceal Evidence Count Twenty re-alleges the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate[s] [those allegations] by reference.... ” Count 20, ¶ 1. Count Twenty charges that from on or about 25 January 1994, through on or about 11 August 1994, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, Giampa, Vittorio and McManus did knowingly and willfully corruptly persuade [Sabol], and engage in misleading conduct toward Sabol, with intent to 1) influence, delay and prevent Sabol’s testimony in an official proceeding; 2) cause and induce Sabol to conceal an object, namely, $10,000 in U.S. currency, with intent to impair the integrity and availability of the currency for use in an official proceeding; and 3) hinder, delay, and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer of information relating to the commission of a Federal offense. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b) and 2. Count 20, ¶ 2. V. Counts Twenty-One Through Forty-Six: Travel/Telephone Use in Aid of Racketeering Counts Twenty-One through Forty-Six re-allege the allegations “contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 through 159 of Count 1 ... [and] incorporate^] [those allegations] by reference____” Counts 21-46, ¶ 1. Counts Twenty-One through Forty-Six charge that on the dates listed below, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, the defendants named below knowingly and willfully did travel in interstate commerce and use a facility in interstate commerce, and caused the travel in interstate commerce and use of a facility in interstate commerce, with the intent to promote, manage, establish and carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on, of an unlawful activity, and thereafter did perform, attempt to perform, and cause the performance of, an act to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of such unlawful activity.... In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1952 and 2. Counts 21-46, ¶2. The Redacted Superseding Indictment then lists, for Counts Twenty-One through Forty-Six, the date, the defendant or defendants charged, whether travel or telephone use was employed in aid of racketeering and the unlawful activity involved. Id. at 69-71. W. The Jury Verdict 1. Giampa The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision as to Giampa on Counts One, Two, Five, Twelve, Fifteen and Seventeen. Trial Tr. at 4857-65. Giampa was found not guilty on Counts Thirteen, Fourteen, Nineteen and Twenty. Id. at 4863-65. Giampa was found guilty on Counts Sixteen, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Forty, Forty-Two. Id. at 4864-68. 2. Vittorio The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision as to Vittorio on Counts One, Two, Seventeen and Eighteen. Id. at 4857-65. Vittorio was found not guilty on Counts Nineteen through Twenty-Two and Thirty. Id. at 4865-67. Vittorio was found guilty on Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven through Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen through Sixteen, Twenty-Three through Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Nine, Thirty-Seven and Forty-Three. Id. at 4858-68. 3. Gaito The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision as to Gaito on Count One. Id. at 4857. Gaito was found not guilty on Count Twenty-Two. Id. at 4866. Gaito was found guilty on Counts Three, Four, Six, Seven through Eleven, Twelve, Twenty-Three through Twenty-five and Twenty-Seven. Id. at 4858-66. 4. McManus The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision as to McManus on Counts One and Two. Id. at 4857-58. McManus was found not guilty on Counts Six, as to paragraph A, C and D, Seven through Eleven, Nineteen, Twenty and Thirty. Id. at 4859-62, 4865, 4867. McManus was found guilty on Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, as to paragraph B, Twelve, Thirteen through Sixteen, Twenty-Seven through Twenty-Nine, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Forty-One and Forty-Four through Forty-Six. Id. at 4858-64, 4866-69. 5. Segarra Segarra was found not guilty on Counts One, Six, Seven, Nine, Eleven, Fifteen, Sixteen and Thirty-Three. Id. at 4857-65, 4867. 6. Porco The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision as to Porco on Counts One, Five, Sixteen, Twenty-Nine, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Five and Thirty-Nine. Id. at 4857-59, 4864-65, 4867-68. Porco was found not guilty on Count Thirty. Id. at 4867. Porco was found guilty on Count Fifteen. Id. at 4864. 7. Capra The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision as to Capra on Counts One, Five, and Sixteen. Id. at 4857-59, 4864-65. Capra was found guilty on Count Fifteen. Id. at 4864. Because of the interrelatedness of the evidence and arguments, notwithstanding the acquittals and deadlocked counts in the instant case, all motions are addressed to provide the appropriate background and a complete understanding of this case. Without doing so, it would be difficult to understand how the evidence fits together and how relationships were developed and trust gained between and among the Defendants and with Sabol. Discussion I. Pre-Trial Matters The Defendants made the following pretrial motions: Giampa sought: (1) disclosure of material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (“Brady ”), (2) a bill of particulars, (3) disclosure of the identity of any confidential informant, (4) disclosure of any agreement between the United States Justice Department and any Government Witness, (5) disclosure of prior criminal records, pending criminal offenses and/or ongoing investigations of Government witnesses, (6) disclosure of co-conspirator statements the Government intended to introduce pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 801(d)(2)(E), (7) leave to join in appropriate motions filed on behalf of his co-defendants, (8) severance pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 14”), (9) disclosure of discovery pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (the “Jencks Act”), and (10) disclosure of the grand jury minutes. Vittorio sought: (1) an order striking from the Redacted Superseding Indictment any reference to a prior conviction and other “scandalous” and highly prejudicial material, (2) access to the grand jury minutes, (3) suppression of the contents and fruits of a wiretap on Michael L. Lanteri (the “Lanteri Wiretap”), (4) an order compelling Government agents to preserve notes and reports, (5) disclosure of information discoverable pursuant to the Jencks Act in advance of trial, and (6) a date certain for production by the Government of final transcripts of recorded conversations. Gaito sought: (1) dismissal of the Redacted Superseding Indictment for outrageous conduct by the Government, (2) disclosure of other crimes evidence pursuant to FRE 404(b), (3) an order compelling Government agents to preserve notes and reports, (4) an order compelling the Government to both comply with the discovery order (the “Discovery Order”) and disclose all Brady material, and (5) leave to join in the applicable motions filed by his co-defendants. McManus sought: (1) suppression of custodial statements pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 12(b)(3)”), (2) dismissal of the Redacted Superseding Indictment or suppression of all evidence based on the failure to bring him before a magistrate judge without “unnecessary delay” pursuant to Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 5(a)”) and 18 U.S.C. § 3501, (3) suppression of evidence obtained from a search of his automobile or a hearing on the propriety of such search, (4) preclusion of evidence seized from his automobile pursuant to FRE 404(b) and 403, (5) leave to join in the applicable motions of his co-defendants, and (6) to reserve his right to make further motions as they became appropriate. Segarra sought: (1) dismissal of the Redacted Superseding Indictment for failure to allege sufficient facts to establish the crimes charged, (2) an order striking from the Redacted Superseding Indictment any reference to “scandalous” and highly prejudicial material, (3) severance of his trial from that of McManus pursuant to Bruton, (4) severance pursuant to Rule 14, (5) an order compelling disclosure of Brady material, (6) an order requiring Government agents to preserve notes and reports, (7) a bill of particulars, (8) notification of other crimes evidence, and (9) leave to join in appropriate motions by his co-defendants. Capra and Porco sought: (1) severance of the trial of Capra from McManus pursuant to Bruton, (2) severance of their trial from the trial of their remaining co-defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and Rule 14, (3) a bill of particulars, (4) dismissal of the Redacted Superseding Indictment because it does not allege a crime, and (5) leave to file further motions, as they became appropriate. According to the Government, Fatato by letter, dated 13 February 1995, formally joined in the motions of his co-defendants. Government Brief at 13 n. 3. In light of Fatato’s 27 April 1995 guilty plea, pre-trial motions, to the extent they relate to Fatato, are not addressed. Additionally, the Defendants made the following motions in limine: Giampa moved in limine to suppress and require the redaction from all audiotapes, videotapes and transcripts any references: (1) to Giampa’s prior criminal history, including all references to his 1992 trial, (2) to uncharged and alleged criminal activity, (3) to any unproven conclusions, opinions, and/or allegations of wrongdoing or association made by Sabol, (4) to any conversations by Sabol, and/or alleged co-conspirator’s or other uncharged individuals with respect to allegations of criminal conduct for which Giampa is charged, (5) to the purchase of his automobile and its cost, (6) to fees paid to attorneys in the past for any type of criminal matter, and (7) to his owning a social club. Vittorio moved in limine to suppress and require the redaction from all audiotapes, videotapes and transcripts any references: (1) to his prior criminal record, service of time in jail or probationary status, (2) relating to the accidental shooting of Gaito, (3) by persons other than Vittorio to uncharged criminal activity, (4) by Vittorio to his own uncharged criminal activity, and (5) to drug use by Vittorio or any racial epithets uttered by him. Also, Vittorio moved in limine to suppress the post-arrest statement of Mc-Manus, for leave to file additional in limine motions after the Government identifies all evidence to be relied upon at trial, and for leave to join in co-defendants’ in limine motions relevant to him. Gaito moved in limine to suppress and require the redaction from all audiotapes, videotapes and transcripts any references: (1) to his prior criminal history, (2) to the accidental shooting of him, (3) to any unproven conclusions or allegations of wrongdoing or association made by Sabol, and (4) to racial epithets uttered by him. McManus moved in limine: (1) to redact from the transcripts references to his uncharged criminal activity, (2) to permit him to file additional in limine motions as may become appropriate, and (3) to permit him to join in the in limine motions of any co-defendant which are applicable to him. Segarra moved in limine: (1) for a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of alleged co-conspirator statements concerning Segarra as the source of firearms, (2) to strike from the Redacted Superseding Indictment references to him made by McManus as an “assassin” and on the “lam,” and (3) to redact from the transcripts references to a pending case in the Southern District of New York in which Segarra is charged with importation of heroin into the United States. Capra moved in limine: (1) to preclude admission of the custodial statements of Mc-Manus, (2) to redact and exclude from all audio tapes, video tapes and transcripts any reference to Capra’s prior criminal history, (3) to redact and eliminate any attributions contained in the transcription of any and all video tapes referring to Capra as “Hooks,” (4) to permit him to file additional in limine motions as may become appropriate, and (5) to permit him to join in the in limine motions of any co-defendant which are applicable to him. By letter, dated 7 April 1995, Porco requested leave to join in the in limine motions of his co-defendants, as appropriate. Accordingly, analysis of the motions in limine will similarly apply to Porco. Another pre-trial matter addressed in this opinion is a request which was made by the Government to limit the amount of information, regarding prospective jurors, provided during the jury selection process. A. Severance Giampa, Segarra, Capra and Porco requested severance of their trials from the trial of their co-defendants pursuant to Rule 14. Giampa Brief at 10-16; Segarra Brief at 9-12; Capra and Porco Brief at 5-7. Additionally, Segarra, Capra, Porco and Vittorio requested severance of their trials from the trial of McManus pursuant to Bruton. Segarra Brief at 7-8; Capra and Porco Brief at 2-4; 22 February 1995 Vittorio Letter. 1. Joinder Pursuant to Rule 8 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 8”) permits joinder of offenses and defendants. Joinder of offenses and defendants promotes economy of judicial and prosecutorial resources, as well as the public interest in avoiding expensive and duplicative trials. United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449, 106 S.Ct. 725, 732, 88 L.Ed.2d 814, reh’g denied, 475 U.S. 1104, 106 S.Ct. 1507, 89 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986); United States v. Gorecki, 813 F.2d 40, 42 (3d Cir.1987); United States v. Jackson, 649 F.2d 967, 973 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 574, 70 L.Ed.2d 479 (1981). “There is a preference in the [Fjederal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537, 113 S.Ct. 933, 937, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). When distinct offenses have both a logical and temporal relationship, joinder permits the Government to present its evidence in an efficient manner. See United States v. Eisenberg, 773 F.Supp. 662, 696 (D.N.J.1991). Rule 8(b) “provides substantial leeway to prosecutors who would join racketeering defendants in a single trial.” United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 567 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 925, 112 S.Ct. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). It permits joinder of defendants alleged to have participated in the “same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” Fed. R. Crim.P. 8(b). Acts or transactions have been considered part of the “same series” when they are performed “pursuant to a common scheme or plan.” United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042, 1049 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1357, 122 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993); United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647, 656 (8th Cir.) (Although conspiracy need not be alleged, “facts must be alleged which at least suggest the existence of an overall scheme encompassing all the defendants and all the charged offenses.”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1040, 103 S.Ct. 456, 74 L.Ed.2d 608 (1982); Natanel, 938 F.2d at 307 (joinder proper as long as some common activity binds objecting defendant with all other indictees and that common activity encompasses all charged offenses). Similarly, “[w]hen the facts underlying each offense are so closely related that proof of such facts is necessary to establish each offense, joinder of defendants and offenses is proper____ By contrast, when there is no substantial identity of facts or participants between the offenses,