DiCarlo v. United States

upholding the imposition of preclusionary and monetary sanctions where the resisting party had stopped claiming that foreign law forbade discovery and noting that “Andersen acted in bad faith and the balancing was heavily on Ohio’s side” | “Particularly is there a heavy burden on a defendant when the facts were known to him from the beginning” | order imposing preclusionary and monetary sanctions for non-compliance with discovery orders was final and appealable | order imposing preclusionary and monetary sanctions for noncompliance with discovery orders was final and appealable | “Cooperation among counsel is not only helpful, but required, and the court has the duty to ensure that such cooperation is forthcoming.” | request for, inter alia, evidence which may tend to “impeach or discredit incriminatory evidence ... or which may lead to evidence of such character” considered a general request | First Circuit termed this “a classic example of a non-specific request as defined in Agurs." 575 F.2d at 959 (referring to Brady request in United States v. McCrane, 527 F.2d 906, 910 (3d Cir.1975 | “Where a jury has been clearly admonished not to read newspaper accounts of the trial in which they are serving as jurors, it is not to be presumed that they violated that admonition.” | "Where a jury has been clearly admonished not to read newspaper accounts of the trial in which they are serving as jurors, it is not to be presumed that they violated that admonition." | proof of defendant-taxpayer's involvement in illegal cash business justified dash method