Source: https://es.scribd.com/doc/316042151/United-States-v-Jason-Brion-Angiulo-United-States-of-America-v-John-Carmen-Cincotti-United-States-of-America-v-William-Joseph-Kazonis-United-Sta
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:20:32+00:00

Document:
Jason Brion ANGIULO, Defendant, Appellant.
John Carmen CINCOTTI, Defendant, Appellant.
William Joseph KAZONIS, Defendant, Appellant.
Nos. 86-1965, 86-2000, 86-2017 and 87-1745.
brief, for defendant, appellant Jason Brion Angiulo.
on brief, for defendant, appellant John Carmen Cincotti.
Frank L. McNamara, Jr., U.S. Atty., Robert S. Mueller, III, Acting U.S.
Atty., Jeremiah T. O'Sullivan, Jeffrey Auerhahn and John Voorhees, Sp.
through a pattern of racketeering or collection of an unlawful debt (18 U.S.C.
that was introduced against Cincotti.
extended credit to players. Chips were provided at $500 each to the players.
credit had been extended that evening.
profits from Las Vegas Nights with his father, Gennaro Angiulo, and others.
obstruct the grand jury investigation.
from LaFreniere that he would not cooperate with the grand jury investigation.
there was a murder contract on his life.
meet with LaFreniere and explain the plan that he go to jail rather than testify.
said nothing to the grand jury.
the maximum sentence he would serve for contempt would be 18 months.
18 months in prison for that offense.
context in which Cincotti alleged errors at trial.
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.
the Patriarca Family of La Cosa Nostra, and thereby constituted an "enterprise"
and contracted in gambling activity" in violation of Massachusetts laws.
substantive violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c).
right to be indicted by a grand jury. The district court denied that motion.
at the time of the alleged violations, this court had held, in United States v.
conviction. We address each argument in turn.
to be indicted by the Grand Jury.
for a valid RICO conspiracy charge that we established in United States v.
alternatively constitute the third required element of a RICO conspiracy.
jury. See id. at 1140.
convictions, he had the right to rely upon our decision in United States v.
reiterate all of them to adequately dispose of this question.
criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime," id.
Constitution forbids." Id. at 353, 84 S.Ct. at 1702.
no fair warning that their conduct was criminal. Id. at 361-62, 84 S.Ct. at 170607.
and construed statute in question in line with every other circuit); cf. Bouie v.
v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. at 484, 104 S.Ct. at 1948.
favorable to the government. United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d at 983.
addition, that these acts were performed in furtherance of the Patriarca Family.
the evidence was sufficient on both of these issues. We address each in turn.
government failed to present evidence of voice identification. We disagree.
collected of unlawful debts in connection with gambling operations.
Brief of John Cincotti at 48.
North Margin Street. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(6); Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch.
these activities were carried out to further the interests of the Patriarca Family.
This would support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c).
debts, all of which included participation in the affairs of the Patriarca Family.
jury. We address each of these issues, as well as underlying sub-issues.
This argument lacks merit. As we recently pointed out in United States v.
818 F.2d at 998; United States v. Baines, 812 F.2d at 42; United States v.
Arruda, 715 F.2d at 684-85.
against each individual defendant. Tr. vol. 52, p. 145.
concerning the Patriarca Family's murder plans before the jury.
the offense for which that defendant was charged.
spillover; we will not entertain speculative allegations of prejudice).
consideration of statements pertaining to murder plans. See supra pp. 961-962.
associates" of the Patriarca Family of La Cosa Nostra.
him to testify even though he did not reveal the identity of certain informants.
states of mind. We address each of these contentions.
by informants whose identity he could not disclose on cross-examination.
that would allow them to test the credibility of his testimony on crossexamination. We disagree.
organization was based only upon tape recordings played at trial. Tr. vol. 29, p.
crimes for which they were found guilty.26 Neither argument is persuasive.
defendants. See United States v. Daly and Giardina, supra at 1387-88.
United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 363 (2d Cir.1986); United States v.
submissions from the parties, the district court denied the defendants' motions.
the government's motion for a "disclosure order" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
orders, including the RICO charges.
original tape recordings (over 300 in total) for audio enhancement purposes.
addressed by any other circuit.
a "satisfactory explanation" for its failure immediately to seal. Id. at 866-68.
provide the prosecution with a tactical advantage. Id. at 868-69.
alteration addressed by section 2518(8)(a).
that the government made a "good cause" showing for the temporary unsealing.
S.Ct. at 1723; United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 716 (4th Cir.1977).
United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838, 852-53 (3d Cir.1976); United States v.
investigate were highly organized and complicated, involving multiple parties.
States, 436 U.S. at 140, 98 S.Ct. at 1725).
particularly true during the early stages of the surveillance, see Scott, 436 U.S.
requirement); United States v. Daly, 535 F.2d at 442 & n. 8).
F.2d at 718; United States v. Quintana, 508 F.2d at 875.
introduction of evidence concerning RICO violations at trial was harmless.
surveillance authorizations, we would not disturb their convictions.
before you as to the specific location of the microphones.
111 Tr. vol. 49, p. 147.
the two men." Id. at 349.
in denying their motion for a new trial.
codefendant Cintolo's trial, the location of the microphones at 98 Prince Street.
if the government made the requested disclosures. Id. (quoting United States v.
Harley, 682 F.2d 1018, 1020 (D.C.Cir.1982)).
the point that they wanted to make through use of the privileged information.
122 Motions for new trials are directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
the part of the district court will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Id.
minds concerning their participation in those conversations.
124 We affirm the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial.
U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate.
in Turkette when he engaged in the conduct that led to his RICO convictions.
knowledge of the scope and nature of the RICO conspiracy.
Tr. vol. 51, pp. 41-44. The defendants objected to these conclusions.
to the district court's Petrozziello findings and proposed jury instructions. Tr.
the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
John Cincotti was a "soldier" in the "capo regime" of Larry Zannino. Tr. vol.
matters for the trier of fact alone.
supervising judge, detailed the progress and results of the surveillance.
authorizing surveillance was in the room.
challenge these findings, but contest the district court's legal conclusions.
granted their motion for an evidentiary hearing on the minimization issue.
claim, the district court properly denied their request for an evidentiary hearing.
Section 2517(3) is quoted supra note 28.
Order Authorizing the Continued Interception of Oral Communications, M.B.D.
paralleled federal offense for which government obtained indictment).
Gennaro Angiulo: Drink up Skinny, you might go away tomorrow.
William Kazonis: What reason? ... for what?
Gennaro Angiulo: Obstructing justice. Right Billy.
Unknown male: What reason? ... for what?
William Kazonis: Who they talking to?
simply adopts, by reference, the arguments made by Kazonis on this point.
without deciding, that the Sixth Amendment applied to such a case, but cf.
(1986) (declining to extend Sixth Amendment "fair cross-section requirement"

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.