Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02939/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02939-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Mack
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

Nos. 14-2916 and 14-2939

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RALPHIEL MACK,

Appellant in No. 14-2916

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TONY MACK,

A/K/A HONEY FITZ,

A/K/A THE LITTLE GUY,

A/K/A NAPOLEON

Tony F. Mack,

Appellant in No. 14-2939

_____________

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey 

District Court Nos. 3-12-cr-00795-001 & 003

District Judge: The Honorable Michael A. Shipp

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 6, 2015

Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 4, 2015) 

 

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
2

_____________________

 OPINION*

_____________________ 

 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

These consolidated appeals concern a public corruption sting operation that 

ultimately resulted in the convictions of the Mayor of Trenton––Tony Mack––and his 

brother––Ralphiel Mack. After an eighteen day jury trial, the Mack brothers were 

convicted of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and (b)(2) (conspiracy to 

commit extortion under color of official right and attempt to do the same), and one count 

of violating 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (accepting a bribe). Tony Mack was also convicted 

of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 (scheme to defraud money, 

property, and honest services: wire fraud) and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 

and 1346 (scheme to defraud money, property, and honest services: mail fraud). On 

appeal, Tony Mack raises one claim of prosecutorial misconduct, while Ralphiel Mack 

raises a plethora of claims that are unsupported by the record. 

I. Tony Mack 

Tony Mack claims that the Government knowingly made a factual 

misrepresentation during its rebuttal closing argument that ultimately prejudiced him. 

This issue was not raised at trial, and therefore it is reviewed for plain error. United 

States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 134 (3d Cir. 2012). The Court must determine if the 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute 

binding precedent.

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
3

“prosecutor’s comments to the jury ‘so infect[ed] the trial with unfairness as to make the 

resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” Rolan v. Coleman, 680 F.3d 311, 321 (3d 

Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765 (1987)). In 

determining whether prejudice exists, the court must look to (1) the severity of the 

conduct; (2) the effect of any curative jury instructions; and (3) the totality of the 

evidence against the defendant. Id. Mere misconduct is not grounds for a reversal. 

Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). 

In this case, there are no grounds for reversal. The District Court did not find the 

misrepresentation at issue here––a reference to a specific time frame on a surveillance 

video during the Government’s rebuttal closing argument––to be knowing misconduct, as 

it was based on the court reporter’s typographical error. Even if the Government did 

commit misconduct, the jury was told by the Government to view the tapes themselves, 

and instructed by the District Court that statements of attorneys are not evidence. Finally, 

the weight of the evidence against Tony Mack was overwhelming, and any prosecutorial 

misconduct did not unfairly prejudice him. 

II. Ralphiel Mack

Ralphiel Mack raises several claims, all of which we reject as meritless.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Ralphiel Mack argues that the Government failed to meet its burden of proof on all 

counts. He also claims that the Government knew that it could not meet its burden of 

proof, and thus engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by proceeding to trial. We review a 

claim for sufficiency of the evidence de novo, and must determine whether, “after 

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
4

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Vanterpool, 767 F.3d 157, 169 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). 

In a written order addressing Ralphiel Mack’s post-trial Rule 29 motion, the 

District Court noted that “proof of Ralphiel Mack’s knowledge [of the illegality of his 

actions] was by no means overwhelming,” but nonetheless concluded “that it was 

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” We agree that “any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Vanterpool, 

767 F.3d at 169. Two pieces of evidence pertaining to Ralphiel Mack’s knowledge that 

the Court deems particularly persuasive are the discovery of $2,500 in “marked” hundred 

dollar bills in his wallet, and his subsequent phone call to a co-conspirator saying that he 

hoped that the money had been “switched up.” Because the evidence was sufficient, the 

prosecutorial misconduct claim based on the Government’s proceeding to trial with 

insufficient evidence is also meritless.1 

B. Giorgianni Recordings

At trial, the Government introduced several tape recordings of Joseph Giorgianni, 

a co-conspirator of the Mack brothers. Before trial, defense counsel stipulated as to the 

 

1 For the same reasons, Ralphiel Mack’s claim that there was a variance between the facts 

alleged in the indictment and those proven at trial is meritless. This claim relies on 

statements of denial made by co-conspirator Joseph Giorgianni when he was first 

apprehended. Giorgianni later confessed and corroborated the facts alleged in the 

indictment. 

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
5

authenticity of the recordings. However, neither the Government nor the Mack brothers 

called Giorgianni as a witness, despite his availability to testify for either party. Ralphiel 

Mack argues that the District Court erred when it did not allow him to play certain 

recordings of Giorgianni for the jury. He also argues that the Government’s failure to 

call Giorgianni as a witness, and thus be available for cross-examination, violated the 

Confrontation Clause.2 

The District Court’s evidentiary ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion as to the 

admissibility of the recordings, and the review is plenary as to the proper interpretation of 

the Federal Rules of Evidence. United States v. Georgiou, 777 F.3d 125, 143 (3d Cir. 

2015). Similarly, the ruling concerning the Confrontation Clause is reviewed for abuse 

of discretion, but, to the extent that it was based on an interpretation of the law, this Court 

exercises plenary review. United States v. Bobb, 471 F.3d 491, 497-98 (3d Cir. 2006). 

The recordings were properly used by the Government pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), which provides that a co-conspirator’s statement is not hearsay. 

When Ralphiel Mack’s attorney sought to use the recordings, the District Court properly 

held that Rule 801(d)(2)(E) does not allow the use of co-conspirator statements to be used 

against the Government in a criminal trial. United States v. Kapp, 781 F.2d 1008, 1014 

(3d Cir. 1986). 

The introduction of the recorded conversation between Giorgianni and Charles 

Hall also did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Ralphiel Mack claims that Giorgianni 

 

2 Ralphiel Mack also claims that Government witnesses were allowed to 

improperly interpret Giorgianni’s statements. A review of the record reveals that 

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
6

was aware that Hall was wearing a wire, and thus was aware that his statements would be 

used at trial. This argument was raised at the District Court, which found the claim to be 

“wholly unsubstantiated” by the record. We do not find an abuse of discretion in the 

District Court’s evidentiary ruling, and thus the recorded statements were not testimonial 

and were admissible. United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2012). 

C. Presumption of Innocence

Ralphiel Mack also claims that his presumption of innocence was infringed when 

the Government made certain remarks as part of its opening and closing statements. In 

its opening statement, the Government told the jury to “pay careful attention to what the 

defendants say . . . but also pay careful attention to how they say things; pay careful 

attention to the questions they don’t ask; and pay careful attention to what they 

demonstrate they understand by not asking those questions.” Similar statements were 

made during closing arguments. Taken out of context, this statement appears to be 

commenting on gaps in the in-court testimony of the Mack brothers, but the immediately 

preceding statement, telling the jury to “evaluate this evidence, in particular, the recorded 

conversation,” makes it clear that the Government was referring to the recorded 

conversations of the Mack brothers that it was planning to introduce into evidence, not to 

any statements that it expected the Mack brothers to make on the witness stand. Thus, 

this claim has no support in the record. 

D. Jury Instructions

Ralphiel Mack also argues that the District Court gave several improper jury 

 

in such cases, the witnesses were speaking from personal knowledge. 

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
7

instructions and erred in ignoring several proposed instructions. Review of jury 

instructions is plenary as to whether the District Court misstated the law and for abuse of 

discretion as to the wording of instructions. United States v. Moreno, 727 F.3d 255, 261-

62 (3d Cir. 2013). If counsel fails to object, the standard of review is for plain error. 

United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2005). “Merely proposing a jury 

instruction that differs from the charge given is insufficient to preserve an objection.” 

Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 424 F.3d 336, 339 (3d Cir. 2005). 

Defense counsel wanted an instruction on the testimony of alleged accomplices 

possibly being perjured or unreliable. The District Court properly instructed the jury that 

such testimony should be reviewed “with great care and caution.” No further instruction 

was necessary.3 United States v. Bobb, 471 F.3d 491, 500 (3d Cir. 2006). Ralphiel Mack 

failed to object to the remaining instructions that he contests, and we find no plain error. 

We note that several of the instructions Ralphiel Mack claims were erroneously excluded, 

were included. Furthermore, Ralphiel Mack now challenges one instruction that he 

previously agreed to during the charge conference. 

E. Improper Guideline Calculation

Lastly, Ralphiel Mack claims that his offense level was improperly calculated at 

sentencing. Specifically, he objects to the 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2B1.1(b)(E) for a loss of more than $70,000. He argues that the largest part of the 

calculated loss was $100,000, which he claimed was part of the honest services charges 

 

3 At the charging conference, defense counsel only objected to the use of the word 

“great” instead of the word “greater.” 

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/04/2015
8

of which he was acquitted. He states that he was found with only $2,500, and that no 

more than $5,000 should be attributed to him. However, Counts 1-3 of the Indictment, of 

which he was found guilty, specifically refer to the $100,000 that he claims should not be 

attributed to him. Thus, it was properly attributed to him at sentencing. 

For the reasons stated herein, the judgments of the District Court will be affirmed.

Case: 14-2939 Document: 003112146154 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/04/2015