Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19930518_0040960.C03.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 05:47:47
Document Index: 651985993

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1961', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 3231', '§ 1291']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.LOUIS GATTO, SR., A/K/A STREAKY LOUIS GATTO, SR., APPELLANT IN 91-5949 V. ALAN GRECCO, A/K/A ALAN WOLSHONAK ALAN GRECCO, APPELLANT IN 91-5950
On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Crim. Action Nos. 89-00250-01 and 89-00250-02).
Louis Gatto, Sr. and Alan Grecco were found guilty by a jury of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and other federal criminal statutes. Each was sentenced to sixty-five years in prison and appeals the judgments of conviction and sentence, which we will affirm. We write to address the claim that the district court erred in allowing a witness to testify and the prosecution to comment in closing argument about the allegedly threatening conduct during trial of Grecco and a courtroom spectator.*fn1
Gatto and Grecco were tried on charges that they conspired to violate RICO by agreeing to conduct the affairs of a faction of the Genovese Family of the Mafia through a pattern of racketeering activity involving the operation of an illegal sports gambling business and an illegal numbers gambling business. Six predicate acts were alleged to have formed the pattern of racketeering activity.*fn2 The Indictment also charged defendants with using interstate telephone facilities in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2; interstate travel in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2; and interstate transportation of gambling records, in violation of §§ 1953 and 2.
The jury found that all predicate acts had occurred as alleged*fn3 and convicted both defendants on all counts. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and our jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The following account of the facts views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
The prosecutor then elicited testimony from Belli that Moe Brown had been in the courtroom while he testified, standing in the back directly in front of him, and that Brown had looked unhappy.*fn4 Defense counsel objected but stated no grounds. Later in the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence that Brown had been seen during surveillance near the Lodi Social Club, where Gatto and Grecco often met with associates, and had been seen talking with William Odierno, an original codefendant who worked in defendants' gambling business. The prosecution also introduced a tape of a conversation between Louis Gatto, Jr. (defendant Gatto's son) and Grecco, involving defendants' gambling business, in which Moe Brown was mentioned by name.*fn5
Following the questions about Moe Brown, the prosecutor examined Belli about Grecco. Belli testified that he feared Grecco and feared another beating. The prosecutor then asked Belli about three occasions during the trial when Grecco had looked at him. The first was before Belli testified, when Grecco passed by Belli in the courthouse hall. Defense counsel's objection at this point was overruled.*fn6 The second look came when Belli was in the back of the courtroom waiting to testify, and Grecco turned his chair ...