In US v. Caracappa, No. 09-1177, the Second Circuit affimed defendants' racketeering and drug conspiracy convictions on the grounds that 1) there was no error in the district court's determination that defendants had suggested that a witness had fabricated his testimony in order to get out of prison; 2) a witness's alleged improper vouching for another government witness was an isolated incident that did not amount to plain error; and 3) the government's cross-examination of a defense witness was within the scope of direct examination.
Manganiello v. City of N.Y., No. 09-0462, involved an action against a police detective for malicious prosecution. The court of appeals affirmed judgment for plaintiff on the grounds that 1) there was ample evidence to support plaintiff's claim that defendant lacked probable cause; 2) the jury could reasonably infer that defendant refrained from making an inquiry into other possible suspects; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant proceeded against plaintiff with malice.