Full opinion text
KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendants David Thai, Lan Ngoc Tran (“Lan Tran”), Minh Do, Jimmy Nguyen (“Jimmy”), Quang Van Nguyen (“Quang”), Hoang Huy Ngo (“Hoang Ngo”), and LV Hong appeal from judgments entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York following a jury trial before Carol Bagley Amon, Judge, convicting them of a host of crimes involving murder, robbery, and extortion, in connection with their participation in the activities of a street gang. Ail of the appellants were convicted of participating and conspiring to participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d) (1988). In addition, Thai was convicted on 14 other counts: one count of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (1988), one count of conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(6) (1988), eight counts of conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery or extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1988) (the “Hobbs Act”), two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1988), and two counts of possession of a firearm without serial numbers, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i) (1988). Lan Tran was convicted on seven additional counts: one count of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), and six counts of conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery or extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act. Minh Do, Jimmy, Hoang Ngo, Quang, and LV Hong were each convicted on one additional count of conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery or extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act. Thai was sentenced principally to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment, plus one term of twenty years, two terms of ten years, and one term of three years, all to be served concurrently with his life terms; the prison terms were to be followed by three concurrent three-year terms of supervised release, plus one one-year supervised-release term to be served concurrently with the three-year supervised-release terms. Thai was also ordered to pay $413,285 in restitution. Lan Tran was sentenced principally to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment, plus one term of twenty years and one term of ten years to be served concurrently with his life terms, to be followed by two concurrent three-year terms of supervised release. Jimmy was sentenced principally to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment, plus one term of twenty years to be served concurrently with his life terms, to be followed by one three-year term of supervised release. The remaining defendants were sentenced principally to the following terms of imprisonment, each to be followed by three concurrent three-year terms of supervised release: Minh Do — three concurrent terms of 130 months; Hoang Ngo — three concurrent terms of 188 months; Quang — three concurrent terms of 168 months; and LV Hong— three concurrent terms of 121 months. On appeal, defendants make numerous challenges to their convictions, including challenges to (a) the use of an anonymous jury, (b) the conduct of the prosecutors, (c) various evidentiary rulings, and (d) the sufficiency of the evidence. They also challenge several aspects of sentencing. For the reasons below, we reverse Thai’s conviction for conspiracy to assault in violation of § 1959 and remand for recalculation of his sentence in light of that reversal. In all other respects, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND The present appeals arise out of the prosecution of the seven appellants and others in connection with their participation in the affairs of a gang known as Born To Kill (“BTK”) or the “Canal Boys.” At trial, the government presented voluminous evidence, including the testimony of more than 80 witnesses; hundreds of exhibits, including tapes and transcripts of approximately 30 recorded conversations- among members of BTK; and physical evidence including guns, ammunition, and homemade bombs. Among the government’s witnesses were some two dozen victims of BTK crimes and four former BTK members, Tinh Ngo, Khang Thanh Vu (“Kenny Vu”), Thanh Tran (“Eddie Tran”), and Nigel Jagmohan. Taken in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence revealed the following. A. Gang Structure and Operation BTK was an organized street gang that committed violent crimes, principally robbery and extortion. Thai was BTK’s leader from 1988 until his arrest in August 1991. He oversaw BTK’s operations, planned many of its crimes, and collected the proceeds of its activities. Lan Tran and LV Hong were Thai’s principal assistants. Lan Tran helped supervise the other gang members and often participated in the gang’s crimes. LV Hong was responsible for internal discipline and for overseeing most of BTK’s extortion activities. The membership of BTK consisted almost entirely of young Vietnamese males. They lived in safehouses in groups of 5-10, with their living expenses paid by Thai and other gang leaders. Discipline was strict, and gang members who disobeyed orders or who were suspected of cooperating with the police or of keeping the proceeds of robberies for themselves, instead of turning them over to Thai, suffered violent retribution. Thai and LV Hong often participated directly in these disciplinary actions. The geographic center of BTK operations was New York City’s Chinatown. Many of the robberies and extortions took place on or near Canal Street in that area, though the gang had cells outside of New York as well. Virtually all of the gang’s robbery and extortion targets were Asian, largely because of the gang’s belief that such victims “don’t know much about the law and they don’t complain to the police.” (Trial Transcript («Tr ”) 521.) The robberies were usually planned by Thai, who typically selected the participants and the victims, planned the timing and manner of the robbery, and provided weapons. The extortions, concentrated in the Canal Street area, consisted in part of BTK members’ collecting an average of $20 or more per week from each of the Asian store owners and sidewalk merchants on Canal Street. From a small number of other merchants in the area, they would also collect up to several hundred dollars at a time. Typically two or more gang members would enter a store and demand money from the owner. One of the gang members would record the store address and the amount received. LV Hong oversaw the operation, and at the end of the day, the money that had been collected was turned over to him. LV Hong was responsible for dealing with recalcitrant merchants. Those who did not comply with BTK’s demands were beaten or robbed. B. Specific Crimes The 21-eount indictment charged all of the appellants, and others, with racketeering and EICO conspiracy, and charged each of the appellants with one or more other offenses. Some of the events underlying these charges are summarized below. 1. The W.C. Produce Robbery and the Killing of Cuong Pham In August 1990, Jimmy and several other young Vietnamese males entered W.C. Produce, a Chinatown vegetable wholesaler, brandishing guns and demanding money. They searched the employees and the premises; they bound several of the employees with telephone wire, hit two employees in the head with guns, and shot one employee behind the ear. When Jimmy demanded more money and the owner of the store responded that there was none, Jimmy said, “you looked at me, now I’m going to shoot you.” (Tr. 2187.) Jimmy then fired but narrowly missed the owner. Instead, his bullet struck and killed fellow gang member Cuong Pham, who had been standing near the owner. The robbers fled the premises, taking with them approximately $3,000 in cash, as well as jewelry taken from the individuals. 2. The Bangkok Health Spa Robbery in Connecticut In the fall of 1990, one “Fat Lam,” a BTK member in Bridgeport, Connecticut, advised Thai that the Bangkok Health Spa, a massage parlor in Bridgeport, would make a good robbery target. Thai sent Lan Tran, Kenny Vu, codefendant Tan Lai, and one other gang member to execute the robbery. Thai said Lan Tran should enter the parlor first, followed shortly by the other three. Thai gave each of them guns. On the evening of November 3, 1990, Chin Suk Ruth was working as an employee of the parlor when Lan Tran rang the bell and entered the lobby. After a brief conversation, Lan Tran pulled out a gun and forced Ruth to open the door so that the other gang members could enter. He forced Ruth and most of the other employees and customers to lie on the floor while the robbers ransacked the parlor searching for money and other valuables. The robbers questioned Ruth at gunpoint about where the valuables were kept, slapped her, held a knife to her face, and kicked one of her companions. The robbers took, inter alia, money and a VCR from the parlor, and took a wallet, jewelry, and a leather Jacket from Ruth. They cut the telephone wires and told Ruth they would kill her if she called the police. As they left, Lan Tran paused to point his gun at Ruth. The robbers returned to the gang’s house in Bridgeport, where they were met by Thai. 3. The Vientiane Restaurant Robbery in Connecticut A week or so later, Thai decided that BTK should rob the Vientiane Restaurant, a Laotian restaurant in Bridgeport also identified by Fat Lam as a potential target. Designating Kenny Vu, Lan Tran, and a third member of the gang to execute the robbery, Thai again told Lan Tran to enter first, with the other two gang members to follow. Accordingly, on November 11, Lan Tran entered the Vientiane Restaurant, went into the kitchen, and forced the five employees into the back room, where he told them to sit on the floor and keep their hands over their heads. Kenny Vu and the third gang member entered the restaurant, and the robbers took money from the cash register and jewelry from some of the individuals. The robbers then pulled the telephones from the wall and left the restaurant, with Lan Tran pausing to point and cock his gun at the owner before leaving. The robbers then went to the Bridgeport house where Thai and other gang members were waiting. They turned the proceeds of the robbery, approximately $5,000, over to Thai. 4. The San Wa Fine Jewelry Store Robbery in Georgia and the Attempted Murder of Odum Lim In late November 1990, Thai told Tinh Ngo the gang was going to commit a robbery “far away,” and he sent Tinh Ngo, Kenny Vu, Tan Lai, codefendant Bao Hung Tran (“Nicky”), and other gang members to Georgia. Thai, Hoang Ngo, and others also went to Georgia, and they met with the first group in Gainesville. Thai, Hoang Ngo, Lan Tran, and others stayed at the home of Hoang Ngo’s uncle (the “Gainesville house”), while the first group stayed in a motel. Hoang Ngo drove Thai and other gang members from Gainesville to the San Wa Fine Jewelry store in nearby Doraville, Georgia. Thai, after checking inside, said the store would be “easy to hit.” (Tr. 591.) Hoang Ngo went to a pawn shop and purchased four guns. Thai and several other BTK members, including Lan Tran, Quang, and Hoang Ngo, planned the robbery. As eventually executed, 10 members of the gang drove in three cars to a parking lot several blocks from the store; Thai then broke his necklace and told Nicky to enter the store pretending to want to get it fixed. Eight gang members then proceeded in two of the cars to the San Wa Fine Jewelry store. When they reached the store, the only people there were owners Odum Lim and his wife Kim Lee Lim, with their two young daughters. Nicky entered and approached Kim Lim, asking her to repair the broken necklace. He then jumped the counter, grabbed her by the neck, and forced her and her daughters at gunpoint to the back of the store. Nicky placed Kim Lim in handcuffs and told her that if she made a loud noise, he would kill her and her daughters. Lan Tran took money from the safe, Tinh Ngo broke the showcases and took jewelry, and Kenny Vu guarded the front door to ensure that no one interfered. In the meantime, Tan Lai had pulled out a knife and grabbed Odum Lim, while another gang member pointed a gun at Odum Lim’s head. Odum Lim tried to get possession of the gun, which fired into the ceiling. During the struggle, Tan Lai stabbed Odum Lim repeatedly. Finally, Tan Lai called to Lan Tran for help, and Lan Tran came over and shot Odum Lim in the head. The gang members gathered up the jewelry and rushed out to the waiting cars, inadvertently leaving Nicky behind, and drove back to the parking lot. There they met Thai and Quang and returned to the Gainesville house. Nicky eventually returned to the house in a taxi. All told, the gang had taken more than $53,000 in cash and jewelry, which they turned over to Thai. Once all of the gang members had returned to the house, Thai gave each $400-500 and told them to return immediately to New York. He said he would try to sell the jewelry and give them more money later. Odum Lim was hospitalized for nearly a month but survived the attack. 5. The Asian Market Robbery in Tennessee A few days before the San Wa Fine Jewelry robbery, Quang arrived at the Gainesville house and suggested robbing a Vietnamese jewelry store that was two hours away. Shortly thereafter, Jimmy retrieved a gun from the closet and he, Quang, and another gang member left the house. On November 22,1990, Ms. Quang Nguyen (not related to defendant Quang Van Nguyen or defendant Jimmy Nguyen) was at work in her shop, the Asian Market, a food and jewelry store located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, some 120 miles from Gainesville, Georgia. Jimmy and another gang member entered, walked around the store, purchased a few items, and then left. As Ms. Nguyen prepared to leave for the evening and placed the store’s jewelry and cash in a bag, Jimmy knocked at the door and asked for directions. When Ms. Nguyen opened the door to answer, Jimmy forced her back into the store at gunpoint and told her that if she made any noise he would kill her. Another gang member entered the store and put a gun to Ms. Nguyen’s back, and the robbers took her bag, which contained approximately $4,000 in cash and $62,000 worth of jewelry. Forcing Ms. Nguyen to the back of the store, Jimmy bound her with plastic tape and pistol-whipped her. Seating her on a bag of rice, the other gang member took a knife and repeatedly stabbed the bag on either side of Ms. Nguyen until she fainted. The robbers then returned to the Gainesville house, where they gave the proceeds of the robbery to Thai. (Tr. 2643.) 6. The Golden Star Jewelry Store Robbery In early 1991, Thai decided that the gang should rob Golden Star Jewelry, a Vietnamese-owned store located at 302 Canal Street. He selected several gang members, including Jimmy, to commit the robbery. On January 21,1991, those designated were driven to the jewelry store in two cars. Armed, several of them entered and ordered the employees and the owner, Sen Van Ta, to lie on the floor and keep their faces down. The robbers proceeded to take jewelry from the store and took money and jewelry from the employees. Several of the employees were beaten. As the robbers left, a police officer noticed two Asian males run from the direction of the jewelry store and enter a blue Cadillac. He then saw two other Asian males run from the same direction, throw a bag into the back seat of the Cadillac, and jump into the car, which had already begun to move. Several officers pursued the Cadillac through the streets of Chinatown. During the chase, the occupants of the Cadillac opened the doors and threw guns and ammunition into the street. The Cadillac eventually went through a red light and crashed into an oncoming vehicle, coming to a stop shortly thereafter. The driver of the car was Hoang Ngo; he and three other gang members were arrested, and a small quantity of jewelry from Golden Star Jewelry was recovered. That night, Jimmy, who had not been in the Cadillac, met Thai and gave him a bag of jewelry from the robbery. The four gang members who had been arrested eventually pleaded guilty to robbery charges in state court. 7.The Murder of Sen Van Ta After the robbery of Golden Star Jewelry, Sen Van Ta, the owner, identified several of the robbers in a line-up. BTK then began a series of attempts to prevent Ta from testifying. First, Thai spoke with Ta and one of the employees; Thai later told BTK members that he had convinced these witnesses not to testify. A few weeks later, Ta received an anonymous letter containing broken glass and a newspaper article about the robbery. On another occasion, Thai approached Ta as he was opening the store and told him to go to court and say that the four arrested BTK members were not the robbers. In February 1991, BTK members collecting money from the merchants on Canal Street demanded money at Golden Star Jewelry. Ta refused, saying, “our shop was just robbed, how would we have money to give you.” (Tr. 4644.) LV Hong, informed of Ta’s refusal, returned to the store with several other gang members and berated Ta, who persisted in his refusal to pay. Ta promptly reported these visits to the police, and he later identified LV Hong and another gang member as two of the would-be extortionists. LV Hong and the other gang member were arrested; they were later released. After his release, LV Hong related these events to Thai, and Thai said he wanted to “solve the problem at 302 Canal Street, the one who called the policemen.” (Tr. 2348.) Lan Tran offered to take- care of Sen Van Ta. On the evening of March 10, 1991, Lan Tran and Kenny Vu hired a car and were driven to Chinatown. Lan Tran got out, telling Kenny Vu to wait, and walked to a shop just north of Canal Street, where Ta was helping his wife close up. Ta’s 12-year-old nephew Vinh Tran was also present. Lan Tran walked into the store, pulled out a gun, and fatally shot Ta in the head. 8. The E5 Communications Robbery E5 Communications, a Chinese-owned beeper and cellular telephone store north of Canal Street, was a main supplier of equipment and beeper service for BTK members. In March 1991, E5 refused to give free beepers to certain BTK members, including LV Hong. Kenny Vu later informed one of the owners of E5 that LV Hong was a “big brother” on Canal Street and that E5 should give him a free beeper and telephone. When E5 refused, LV Hong suggested to Thai that they rob the store. Thai agreed and instructed LV Hong, Jimmy, and two others to commit the robbery. On the evening of March 25, 1991, Jimmy and one of the other gang members entered the store. They pulled out guns and told the store employees to get on the floor. The robbers kicked one employee and forced another to open the cash register; they fled with a telephone, approximately $2,000 in cash, and jewelry taken from the employees. After the robbery, Kenny Vu informed one of E5’s owners that the store had been robbed because of E5’s refusal to provide free beepers to BTK members. 9. The E5 Communications Extortions Before and after the robbery of E5 Communications, BTK also used intimidation and threats to ensure free or discounted beeper service. Gang members would enter the store in groups, announce that they were “Canal Boys” or “from Canal Street,” and demand discounted beeper service or free accessories. If the owners balked, the gang would become disruptive, causing other customers to leave, and would refuse to stop until the owners gave them what they wanted. In addition, for more than a year, E5 received calls once or twice a month from persons identifying themselves as BTK members and threatening that if E5 failed to give the gang beeper service, BTK would blow up the store. Eventually, E5 agreed to give BTK members a 33% discount on their beeper service. At times the BTK members refused to pay even this discounted price. In early 1991, prior to the March 1991 robbery described in Part I.B.8 above, E5 turned off the beepers of two gang members who had not paid their bills. Minh Do then went to E5 and demanded that the beepers be restored to service. When E5 refused, Minh Do returned with LV Hong and Lan Tran, said that the beepers belonged to the two men, who were his “dai los,” or “leaders,” and insisted that the beepers be reactivated. E5, after attempting unsuccessfully to collect the unpaid bills, reactivated the beepers. Before leaving the store, Lan Tran warned one of the owners never to turn the beepers off again. In July 1991, E5 again turned off LV Hong’s beeper service. LV Hong and Lan Tran paid another personal visit to the store and again successfully demanded restoration of service without payment of bills. 10. The Assault on Nigel Jagmohan On April 15, 1991, Nigel Jagmohan and three other gang members held up a jewelry store on Canal Street but crashed their getaway car into a street pole. Though the driver of the car was immobilized, Jagmohan and the other gang members escaped. Jag-mohan told his cohorts that while he was leaving the scene of the crash, he had thrown away a bag of jewelry acquired in the robbery. The following day, LV Hong began to inquire about the proceeds of the robbery. That evening, LV Hong and Thai sought out Jagmohan at a BTK safehouse in Brooklyn. Rejecting Jagmohan’s repeated assertions that he had thrown the bag of jewelry away, LV Hong and Thai attempted to beat him into turning it over. LV Hong repeatedly hit him over the head with a portable radio and a cutting board, while Thai kicked him. After some 30 minutes, LV Hong and Thai apparently concluded that Jagmohan did not know where the jewelry was, and the beating ceased. By that time, Jagmohan was bleeding profusely and blood was splattered all over the room. LV Hong ordered Jagmohan to leave the safehouse; Jagmohan complied and had no further contact with BTK. 11. The Conspiracy To Rob the Ming Jewelry Store in Rochester In early May 1991, Thai and Lan Tran told Tinh Ngo that Lan Tran, Minh Do, Tinh Ngo, and Tam Thanh Do (“Son”) would travel several hours away to commit a robbery. A few days later, they drove to Rochester and met Thai at the hotel in which he was staying. Thai told them he wanted the four of them to rob the Ming Jewelry Store near Thai’s hotel. Thai instructed that if store employees resisted during the robbery, they should be shot in the head. By this time, however, Tinh Ngo had become a government informant, and when the BTK members set out for the jewelry store the next morning, forewarned law enforcement authorities stopped them. The gang members were questioned; their cars were searched, and their weapons and ammunition were found. However, to protect Tinh Ngo, the police released all of them, indicating that they had been stopped because they met the descriptions of drug traffickers. 12. The Conspiracy To Bomb the Pho Bang Restaurant In early August 1991, Thai told Tinh Ngo that Thai had been offered $10,000 to set off a bomb at the Pho Bang Restaurant in Chinatown. Thai told Tinh Ngo that he had previously instructed Minh Do to bomb the Pho Bang but that Minh Do had bombed the wrong restaurant; Thai learned of the error from the person who had hired him for the job. Thai then gave Tinh Ngo a homemade bomb and instructed him how to detonate it. He told Tinh Ngo to find a new gang member to do the job. Tinh Ngo persuaded a newly-enlisted gang member, “Tom,” to do the bombing; another gang member, “Hai,” offered to act as a lookout. However, Tinh Ngo spoke to the police, and when Tom and Hai approached the Pho Bang Restaurant that night, the police arrested them and took possession of the bomb. 13. The Conspiracy To Rob Sun Moon Trading Also in early August, Thai and Lan Tran planned to rob Sun Moon Trading, a watch company in Manhattan. Lan Tran explained to Tinh Ngo that some “Italians” were going to gain entry to the store by pretending to be federal agents, and that BTK members would then rob the company. On the morning planned for this robbery, Thai drove Lan Tran and LV Hong to Manhattan. After dropping them off, Thai picked up Tinh Ngo and Eddie Tran, who were to load the watches into a van and drive the van to Long Island. The robbery plan was abandoned, however, when their Italian cohorts spotted police surveillance near Sun Moon Trading. C. The Present Prosecution In August 1991, many of BTK’s leaders and members were arrested. In a 21-count superseding indictment, the government charged 12 defendants, including the seven appellants, Tan Lai, Nicky, and Son, with conducting, and conspiring to conduct, the affairs of BTK through a pattern of racketeering activity (counts 1 and 2 (the “RICO counts”)). In addition, Thai and Lan Tran were charged with conspiring to murder Sen Van Ta for the purpose of maintaining or increasing position in the BTK enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959; and Thai was charged with a similar violation of § 1959 in connection with the conspiracy to bomb the Pho Bang Restaurant. Thai was also charged with nine counts of Hobbs Act conspiracy, based principally on the BTK robberies and planned robberies described above, and with several counts of firearms violations. Lan Tran, in addition to the RICO and § 1959 counts, was charged with seven counts of Hobbs Act conspiracy in connection with the two robberies in Connecticut, the San Wa Fine Jewelry robbery in Georgia, the conspiracy to rob the Ming Jewelry Store in Rochester, the conspiracy to rob Sun Moon Trading, and two other robbery conspiracies not described above. One count of Hobbs Act conspiracy was alleged against each of the other appellants in connection with their respective participations in the above events, to wit: against Quang and Hoang Ngo for the San Wa Fine Jewelry robbery in Georgia, against Jimmy for the E5 robbery, against Minh Do for the conspiracy to rob the Ming Jewelry Store in Rochester, and against LV Hong for the conspiracy to rob the Sun Moon Trading watch company. The seven appellants were tried together before an anonymous jury, along with an eighth defendant, David Nguyen, who was acquitted of the four counts against him, to wit, the RICO counts and two Hobbs Act counts. Thai and Lan Tran were acquitted of one count of Hobbs Act conspiracy to commit robbery of a Long Island leather store; they were convicted on all of the other counts described above. Minh Do, Jimmy, Hoang Ngo, Quang, and LV Hong were convicted on all of the counts against them. Appellants were sentenced as indicated above, and these appeals followed. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendants make numerous challenges to their convictions. They contend principally that various aspects of the jury proceedings denied them due process, that the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony as to statements by Sen Van Ta, and that the court should have excluded evidence of so-called “other crimes.” Other contentions include Minh Do’s claims of pros-ecutorial misconduct, principally with respect to the nonproduction or delayed production of evidence; challenges by Lan Tran and Jimmy to various identifications of them by robbery victims; challenges by Quang to both the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on the RICO counts and the court’s jury charge with respect to those counts; challenges by Thai to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his § 1959 conviction in connection with the Pho Bang bombing conspiracy; and challenges to sentencing. Only Thai’s sufficiency challenge requires reversal. A. Contentions With Respect to the Jury Defendants make several arguments focusing on the jury. They challenge the court’s empaneling of an anonymous jury. In addition, they contend that the jury engaged in premature deliberations and that its verdict was the result of confusion. 1. Use of an Anonymous Jury The law is clear in this Circuit that “when genuinely called for and when properly used, anonymous juries do not infringe a defendant’s constitutional rights.” United States v. Vario, 943 F.2d 236, 239 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 882, 116 L.Ed.2d 786 (1992). Anonymity may be warranted when the jury needs protection, as when the government has demonstrated a defendant’s “willingness ... to tamper with the judicial process,” id. at 240; see also United States v. Amuso, 21 F.3d 1251, 1264 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1365 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819, 106 S.Ct. 66, 88 L.Ed.2d 54 (1985); United States v. Ferguson, 758 F.2d 843, 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032, 106 S.Ct. 592, 88 L.Ed.2d 572 (1985), or when there has been extensive pretrial publicity in cases involving allegations of violent conduct, see, e.g., United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1192 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3029, 120 L.Ed.2d 900 (1992). If an anonymous jury is warranted, a defendant’s fundamental rights must be protected “by the court’s conduct of a voir dire designed to uncover bias as to issues in the cases and as to the defendant,” and by “t[aking] care to give the jurors a plausible and nonprejudieial reason for not disclosing their identities or for taking other security measures.” Id. (internal quotes omitted). If there is evidence to support the district court’s finding of reason to believe the jury needs protection, and if the court has taken reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure protection of his fundamental rights, the decision to empanel an anonymous jury is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Id. In the present case, the government moved for an anonymous jury based in large part on evidence of defendants’ acts of intimidation toward their crime victims, their attempts to kill certain of those victims, and the murder of Sen Van Ta because of his refusal to retreat from his complaints to the police. The government also maintained that jurors whose identities were disclosed would be at risk because BTK had at least 100 members, many of whom were not in custody. The district court concluded that the grounds for empaneling an anonymous jury were “compelling.” Memorandum and Order Dated January 6, 1992, at 5. It found that the government had shown that “at least two of the defendants on trial sought directly to interfere with the judicial process by threatening and ultimately killing a civilian witness in an effort to subvert prosecution of a pending robbery case against Born to Kill members,” and this in itself was “a powerful reason to select an anonymous jury.” Id. at 6. The court also found that the case had attracted and would likely continue to attract extensive media coverage, id. at 6-7, and that because of the violent nature of the crimes and defendants’ extensive criminal history, a juror “would have a more than reasonable basis to fear for his or her safety,” id. at 5-6. The court concluded for all of these reasons that an anonymous jury was warranted. In order to protect defendants’ interests in jury selection, the court fashioned, with the input of counsel, a 68-question juror questionnaire designed to elicit pertinent information as to possible bias. The questionnaire made extensive inquiries into the jurors’ personal backgrounds; it explored possible bias resulting from prior involvement with the legal system or with any of the individuals involved in the case; and it examined other potential barriers to the rendering of a fair and impartial verdict. In order to provide a nonprejudieial reason for maintaining anonymity, the introduction to the questionnaire stated, with the approval of the parties, that “[sjelecting an anonymous jury is not an unusual practice and has been followed in many cases in Federal Court. Anonymity will ward off curiosity that might infringe on a juror’s privacy_” The record amply supported the district court’s concern as to efforts by defendants to subvert the judicial process through intimidation and murder; and the court’s questionnaire properly protected defendants’ interests both in the selection of unbiased jurors and in the proffer of a nonprejudieial reason for the preservation of juror anonymity. We find no abuse of discretion in the use of an anonymous jury in the present case. 2. Premature Jury Deliberations Defendants also contend that they were deprived of a fair trial because, notwithstanding the court’s instructions at the com- meneement of trial that the jury was “not [to] discuss the case among yourselves or with anyone else during any recess” (Tr. 10), the jury on three occasions engaged in premature deliberations. Assuming that the record supports this characterization, we nonetheless find no basis for reversal. As to the first incident, the record indicates that early in the trial, after the government’s opening statement and the opening statements of several of the defendants, the jury sent a note to the judge that stated in relevant part, Your Honor, a question came up in the jury room yesterday, that I believe could be resolved by hiring a non-partial translator/interpreter through the jury panel.... I suggest a jury-hired translator to positively eliminate the chance of any questionable evaluation. (Tr. 87.) Defense counsel immediately expressed concern about premature deliberations, and the court reminded the jurors “not to discuss the case, even among yourselves, until after the trial is over and you receive the — heard all the evidence, the summations, the instructions on the law, and are told to deliberate.” (Tr. 87-88.) The court emphasized that this prohibition was necessary to ensure that the jury “keep an open mind until you have heard everything, and it would interfere with that process to be discussing things as you went along.” (Id. 88.) No defendant moved for a mistrial as a result of this incident or sought to have the court conduct any inquiry; no defendant objected to the court’s handling of the matter. The second incident occurred during the testimony of Tinh Ngo, one of the government’s early witnesses, when the jury sent the court a note stating that “the jury requests some sort of reidentification of the defendants with their nicknames and real names. We’re getting confused by the testimony of the witness.” (Tr. 689.) In conference with counsel, the court stated that the jury’s concern seemed valid; the same concern was promptly echoed by various defense counsel. Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) Alan Vinegrad was urged to have the government’s witnesses make clear in each instance which defendant was being described. Accordingly, the court advised the jury that the confusion with respect to the defendants’ names and nicknames would “probably be sorted out.” (Tr. 693.) In addition, although no defendant had voiced this concern with respect to the second jury note, the court again emphasized that the jury should not discuss the ease at all until after all the testimony was in, the summations had been made, and the court had instructed the jury on the law. A day or so later, the court received yet another note from the jury, requesting clarification but. reassuring the court that there had been no further premature discussions. The note stated: I am requesting clarification of the current testimony. The silence in the jury room after your last admonition was ample indication that everyone is very much aware of the importance of carrying out the responsibilities in a proper and correct manner as you have outlined these procedures. This is however a very complicated and confusing group of names and I would like to be sure who is being spoken about. (Tr. 851.) Upon receiving the note, the court told the attorneys “you will be happy to know they are following the admonition not to discuss the case.” (Id.) The third incident relied on by defendants occurred during the cross-examination of Tinh Ngo. The court reported that two of the jurors had expressed to the courtroom deputy “[t]heir concern with their inability to get along with [another juror]. As I understand they have expressed problems with his general demeanor and attitude toward them. I suppose the word obnoxious was used.” (Tr. 1739.) The court further noted that the jurors mentioned “an obnoxious attitude, use of bad language, derogatory remarks about participants in the proceeding, but I suppose there is not a need to do anything.... There is not a need to do anything until we see something further about it.” (Tr. 1740.) No defendant moved for a mistrial or urged the court to take any action. The handling of allegations of juror misconduct is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., United States v. Carmona, 858 F.2d 66, 69 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam); United States v. Weiss, 752 F.2d 777, 783 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 944, 106 S.Ct. 308, 88 L.Ed.2d 285 (1985); United States v. Hockridge, 573 F.2d 752, 756 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 821, 99 S.Ct. 85, 86, 58 L.Ed.2d 112 (1978). The court has broad flexibility in such matters, especially “when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences.” Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). In many instances, the court’s reiteration of its cautionary instructions to the jury is all that is necessary. See, e.g., United States v. Panebianco, 543 F.2d 447, 457 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103, 97 S.Ct. 1128, 1129, 51 L.Ed.2d 553 (1977). We are particularly loath to second-guess the actions of the district court when the defendant has failed to object at trial, lest the defendant be permitted to “wait to hear the verdict before contesting the impartiality of the jury and then attack the court’s refusal to investigate his allegation.” United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). The district court’s handling of the juror conduct in this case was entirely proper. While the first note, and probably the second, suggest that there had been discussions of the case in the jury room, there was no indication that the discussions concerned anything other than a difficulty in keeping track of the names. The court properly reiterated its instruction not to engage in premature deliberations. There is no evidence that any further premature deliberations occurred. Though defendants contend that the incident in which two jurors complained that a fellow juror was “obnoxious” indicates that the jurors were continuing to discuss the case, we see no such indication. In any event, at no time did any defendant object to the court’s handling of these incidents, and there is no basis for relief on appeal. 3. Jury Confusion Hoang Ngo argues that he was convicted principally because of juror confusion over names, and that this confusion denied him due process. We note that the other defendants have joined in the appellate arguments made by their codefendants to the extent applicable. Though there can be no dispute that many of the defendants had similar, or at least similar sounding, names or nicknames and that the jurors were initially apprehensive about the possibility of confusion, we find this contention to be merit-less. First, as indicated in the preceding section, the court took steps to minimize the possibility of confusion. Thus, the government was prompted to have its witnesses identify any mentioned defendant with clarity. In addition, without objection from defendants, the court allowed the government to have a defendant, when referred to by a witness, stand up, thereby giving the jurors visual confirmation as to which defendant was the subject of the testimony. All indications of jury confusion occurred early in the trial, and the record does not indicate that there was any further confusion. Second, the suggestion that the jury remained unable to distinguish one defendant from another because of the similarity of their names or nicknames is belied by the fact that the other defendant tried with appellants, David Nguyen, was acquitted on all of the counts against him, despite the fact that (a) his last name was the same as that of two other defendants, (b) his first name was the same as that of one other defendant, and (c) his nickname, “Dat,” was similar to that of another gang member, “White Dat,” who was mentioned throughout the trial. Given its evident ability to sort through the evidence with respect to David Nguyen, we see no reason to conclude that the jury was unable to do the same with the other defendants. Finally, as indicated in Part II.F. below, with one exception defendants have made no tenable challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence against them. With respect to Hoang Ngo, the evidence was ample. For example, he was charged with two RICO predicate acts in the indictment, i.e., the robberies of San Wa Fine Jewelry and Golden Star Jewelry. As to the former, Tinh Ngo testified that Hoang Ngo had helped plan the robbery; the owner of the Georgia pawn shop identified Hoang Ngo as the purchaser of four guns; and both Kenny Vu and Tinh Ngo testified that Hoang Ngo had driven one of the ears to and from the robbery. As to the Golden Star Jewelry robbery, Hoang Ngo had pleaded guilty in state court and his attorney conceded that he was guilty. In sum, except with respect to one count against Thai, the evidence was sufficient to support defendants’ convictions; we have seen in this record no indication that the jury confused any defendant with any other person. B. Allegations of Prosecutorial Misconduct Minh Do -contends that his conviction should be reversed on account of prosecutorial misconduct, consisting principally of pretrial failures to disclose evidence. While we find some of these failures troubling, we cannot conclude that any actions of the government, either singly or collectively, require reversal. 1. The Delivery of an Incomplete Book of Tape Translations A large part of the government’s evidence consisted of conversations among defendants recorded by confidential informant Tinh Ngo. Defendants were given copies of these tapes well in advance of trial. Just prior to trial, the government gave defense counsel a transcript book that purported to contain final English translations of all of the tapes. In her opening statement, Minh Do’s counsel addressed the matter of the tapes, telling the jury you are going to hear tapes. You are going to see videotapes. You are going to see pictures of [Minh Do] walking down Canal Street, and you are going to see him at work and using the sort of talk that you might expect and your common sense will tell you that a 22-year-old Vietnamese man in his situation might use to survive in a world that is strange and foreign. (Tr. 92.) During Tinh Ngo’s testimony as to conversations he had had with Minh Do concerning the latter’s participation in a robbery, the government played one tape on which Minh Do stated, inter alia, “some of my ‘Boys’ thought that they could rob the gold store, but then the alarm went off.” (Tape of Conversation of June 29,1991,12:30 p.m., at 2.) This conversation, however, was not in the book of translations given to Minh Do’s counsel, and she immediately moved for a mistrial. She argued that Minh Do was prejudiced because this conversation was inconsistent with her opening statement in which she had asserted that Minh Do’s recorded conversations were consistent with what one would expect to hear from an innocent person unfamiliar with America. The district court concluded that, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a), the final translations of the tapes should have been turned over to the defense prior to opening statements. However, the court concluded that Minh Do had suffered no prejudice as a result of the government’s delay, and it offered to allow his counsel more time to prepare for cross-examination. We see no basis for reversal. Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a), the government is required to turn over to the defendant on request “any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant ... within the possession, custody, or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A). The trial court has broad discretion to fashion a remedy for the government’s violation of the Rule. See United States v. Williams, 902 F.2d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1990). The district court’s admission of evidence following a violation of Rule 16(a) is not an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial unless the violation caused the defendant substantial prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 548, 553 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1181 (2d Cir.1993). For several reasons, we are unable to conclude that Minh Do’s nonreceipt of the translation of the above conversation prior to trial resulted in prejudice to him. First, Minh Do had possession of copies of the tapes themselves prior to trial and had had a translator listen to them. Thus, he knew or should have known that this conversation was recorded. Further, to the extent that he was “surprised,” he could have taken advantage of the district court’s offer to allow counsel more time to prepare for cross-examination. Finally, there were several other taped conversations, the translations of which were indisputably in the possession of Minh Do’s counsel prior to her opening statement, and those other conversations squarely contradicted her assertion that the tapes would show Minh Do only as an innocent feeling his way in a new land. For example, on one tape, Minh Do stated, inter alia, “Tomorrow we are going to rob”; “Don’t plan anymore”; “Tomorrow if the robbery is successful, I don’t know what is next”; “Probably it will be satisfying when we count the money.” (Tape of Conversation of May 10, 1991, 9:00 p.m., at 3-4.) On another tape, Minh Do, accompanied by fellow gang member Anh Loc, was recorded extorting money from a shop owner as follows: Minh [Do]: It’s been a long time since I talked to you, please give me some money. Owner: Ok, later in the afternoon please Anh Loc. Since this morning I have not been able to sell. Loc: Ok in the afternoon. Minh [Do]: Fuck. If he doesn’t give then break his stuff. (Tape of Conversation of June 29,1991,12:30 p.m., at 19.) Thus, Minh Do’s opening statement was contradicted even by tapes whose translations he had received. We conclude that there was no prejudice and that the district court’s decision to admit the evidence and deny Minh Do’s motion for a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. 2. The Tape of Tinh Ngo’s Initial Police Interview Pursuant to the Jeneks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (1988), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the defense requested that the government produce all statements made by confidential informant Tinh Ngo. The government assured the court that all requests for such “3500 material” had been complied with. No tape of Tinh Ngo’s initial meeting with Detective William Oldham of the New York City Police Department was included. However, during the cross-examination of Tinh Ngo by Thai’s attorney, Tinh Ngo stated that during his first interview with Old-ham, there had been a tape recorder on the table. Defendants promptly moved for a mistrial. When questioned by the court, AUSA Vi-negrad stated that it was his understanding that no tape recording had been made. He said that when Tinh Ngo testified that a tape recorder had been present, Vinegrad “checked that with the individual involved.” (Tr. 1297.) Oldham, who was present at counsel table, said nothing to contradict or correct Vinegrad’s representations. On the following day, however, having investigated the matter further, Vinegrad informed the court that he had been in error, and that, unbeknownst to him, the interview had in fact been recorded. Copies of the tape were then immediately made available to defense counsel. Minh Do renewed the motion for a mistrial on the ground of prose-cutorial misconduct. The district court, noting that the tape was useful primarily as impeachment material, denied the mistrial motion and declared a one-day recess to allow the defense attorneys to listen to the tape. Addressing Minh Do’s counsel in particular, the court pointed out that Minh Do’s cross-examination of Tinh Ngo had not yet begun. As it turned out, that cross-examination did not begin until five days after the tape was turned over. In order to gain reversal as a result of a Brady violation, a defendant must show “ ‘a reasonable probability’—one ‘sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome’—that the jury would have resolved [the defendant’s] case differently had the prosecution disclosed the [evidence] on a timely basis.” Payne v. LeFevre, 825 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 988, 108 S.Ct. 508, 98 L.Ed.2d 506 (1987); see also United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383-84, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.); United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1987). We see no such reasonable probability here. Although the tape indicated that Tinh Ngo had lied to the police in his first interview, the trial court noted that the witness had said during his direct examination and said at least eight times during all the individual cross examinations, [that] he lied. He lied to the agents when he first met them. That was something that was right out before the jury. (Tr. 2810.) Thus, though we do not countenance the government’s failure to fulfill its constitutional and statutory obligations to produce exculpatory or impeaching material, we cannot conclude, in light of the recess granted by the court and the redundancy of the belatedly disclosed material, that there was any prejudice. Accoi’dingly, this failure provides no basis for reversal. 3. The Knife During his description of the conspiracy to rob the Ming Jewelry Store in Rochester, Tinh Ngo testified that prior to going to Rochester he and Minh Do had attempted to purchase a knife in Manhattan and that when they were unable to do so, they drove to Minh Do’s apartment in the Bronx to retrieve one before going to Thai’s house on Long Island. On cross-examination, Minh Do’s counsel extensively probed the implausibility of the story that Tinh Ngo and Minh Do had made a three-hour detour to Minh Do’s apartment to get a knife rather than simply purchasing one at any hardware store. Later in the trial, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“BATF”) agent who had participated in the search of the gang’s vehicles in Rochester, testified that she had found a knife in one car. Minh Do immediately moved for a mistrial on the ground that the existence of the knife had neither been mentioned in any of the police reports nor disclosed by the government in response to defendants’ pretrial motions. The district court denied the motion for a mistrial, but it gave Minh Do the options of striking the BATF agent’s testimony about the knife or recalling Tinh Ngo for further examination. While arguing that neither of these remedies was sufficient, Minh Do decided not to have the testimony stricken and instead cross-examined government agents extensively about their failure to mention the knife in their incident reports. He pursues here the contention that the court should have declared a mistrial. We disagree. Assuming that the government’s nondisclosure of the seizure of a knife violated its disclosure obligations, the matter was far too insubstantial to warrant a mistrial. The cross-examination of Tinh Ngo did not intimate that there had been no knife but only that it was implausible that the gang members had taken a three-hour trip to get one from Minh Do’s apartment rather than simply buying one at a hardware store. Further, the BATF agent did not testify that the knife found had belonged to Minh Do. And, as the court noted, the course of events allowed the defense to have a “field day” on cross-examination with respect to the agents’ failure to mention the seized knife in their reports. The district court offered defendants, inter alia, the “extreme sanction” of having the testimony stricken from the record, which is “the most severe remedy a court can impose short of declaring a mistrial.” United States v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1557 (11th Cir.1985) (internal quotes omitted). No more was required. 4. Other Claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct Minh Do’s other claims of prosecuto-rial misconduct include the claim that the government’s summation improperly vouched for the credibility of its witnesses and improperly commented on the failure of the defense to cross-examine the translator of the tape recordings. These contentions do not warrant extended discussion. A prosecutor may not properly vouch for the credibility of a witness. However, the government is allowed to respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity of its case, see, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 22 F.3d 430, 438 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 60-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 134, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983), and “when the defense counsel have attacked the prosecutor’s credibility or the credibility of the government agents, the prosecutor is entitled to reply with ‘rebutting language suitable to the occasion,’” United States v. Praetorius, 622 F.2d 1054, 1060-61 (2d Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. LaSorsa, 480 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 157, 38 L.Ed.2d 105 (1973)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 162, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980). Here, the integrity of the prosecutors had repeatedly been impugned. For example, Minh Do’s counsel argued, “The Government wants an interpreter who will take suggestions from Tinh Ngo. The Government wants someone who will say they’re willing to guess at what sounds mean and make sense out of things that they can’t make sense out of, someone who will agree that if you say it in black and white on this transcript it’s got to be so or at least it’s possible, and they found someone who will do that.” (Tr. 7273.) Lan Tran’s counsel argued, “Does this case help the careers of these agents and detectives _ That’s what they want, the publicity.” (Tr. 7197-98.) In response, AUSA Patricia Pileggi, in the government’s rebuttal summation, made the statements challenged here: What do you think [AUSA] Vinegrad is interested in? Do you think that he is interested in a fabricated or a shaded version of events? Do you think that he’s interested in slanting things before you? (Tr. 7611.) In light of defendants’ attacks, we conclude that this relatively mild response was not improper. Nor is there merit in Minh Do’s challenge to the AUSA’s statement that none of the defendants had cross-examined the government’s translator as to the accuracy of the tapes. An observation in summation “that evidence adduced by the Government was not confronted on cross-examination is entirely proper.” United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 884 (2d Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 246 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, 111 S.Ct. 273, 112 L.Ed.2d 229 (1990); United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 989 (2d Cir.1987). Accordingly, the government’s comments were not inappropriate. We are unpersuaded by Minh Do’s additional argument that the government’s comment was particularly unfair to him because one conversation with Tinh Ngo, discussed in Part II.B.l. above, had not been included in the book of final tape translations prior to trial. Minh Do apparently made no effort to have the translator recalled for cross-examination; indeed, he did not even accept the court’s offer of extra time to prepare for cross-examination of Tinh Ngo on that conversation. C. Challenges to Identification Testimony Lan Tran and Jimmy make a number of challenges to the admission at trial of pretrial or in-court identifications of them by victims of BTK’s various crimes. The general principles governing these challenges are well established. A defendant has a due process right not to be the object of suggestive police identification procedures that create “ ‘a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ ” United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 377 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 163, 126 L.Ed.2d 124 (1993). The right to be free from suggestive identification procedures extends to photographic arrays. See, e.g., Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. at 971; United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d at 377; Jarreto v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 40-41 (2d Cir.1986). An appellate court may review the array to determine whether it was unduly suggestive. See, e.g., United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 974 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1233, 111 S.Ct. 2858, 115 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1991); United States v. Jacobowitz, 877 F.2d 162, 168 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). In reviewing challenges to pretrial identification procedures, a court must examine the procedures employed in light of the particular facts of the case and the totality of the surrounding circumstances. See United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d at 377; United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 973. The district court’s findings as to what procedures were used may be overturned only if clearly erroneous, and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is, as usual, entitled to deference. See United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 803 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 104, 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992); United States v. DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 213 (2d Cir.1987). If the pretrial procedures were not suggestive, any remaining questions as to reliability, such as the witness’s inability to identify the same person at trial, go to the weight of the identification and not to its admissibility, and the identification therefore is generally admissible without any further reliability inquiry. See, e.g., United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 974-76; see also Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d at 42. If pretrial procedures have been unduly suggestive, an in-court identification may still be permitted if the court determines that the identification is independently reliable. See United States v. Butler, 970 F.2d 1017, 1021 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 480, 121 L.Ed.2d 386 (1992). The factors to be considered in assessing reliability include “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see also United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d at 377. The factors must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances, recognizing that the linchpin of admissibility is reliability. See id. at 378; United States v. Butler, 970 F.2d at 1021. For the reasons below, we conclude that the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive and that none of the individual identifications of Jimmy or Lan Tran was the product of impermissibly suggestive procedures. 1. The Challenges to the Array Both Lan Tran and Jimmy contend that the array itself was unfair, principally because Lan Tran’s picture was an uncropped, informa