Opinion ID: 557991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events At and Preceding Trial.

Text: 13 On November 9, 1981 special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the FBI) applied for and received court authorization to intercept communications being conducted over a telephone in a house occupied by Ruggiero at 163-36 88th Street, Howard Beach, New York. In the months prior to the application, FBI agents had been in contact with confidential informants who had reported that Ruggiero was a member of the Gambino organized crime family, which engaged in extortionate extensions and collections of credit and illegal gambling, and that he conducted conversations over the telephone at the above address regarding those activities. 14 The interception of telephone calls continued at the Howard Beach location until December 1, 1981, when Ruggiero moved to a new residence located at 370 Barnard Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York. Following the move, on December 29, 1981, agents applied for and received authorization to intercept telephone conversations from the two telephones located in Ruggiero's Cedarhurst home for a period of thirty days. 3 15 On April 5, 1982, in addition to receiving authorization to intercept wire communications for an additional thirty days, agents applied for and were given authority to place electronic surveillance devices in several rooms of Ruggiero's Cedarhurst home. This authorization was extended by subsequent thirty-day orders on May 7, 1982 and June 7, 1982. 16 Over the course of this surveillance, agents gathered tapes evidencing that Ruggiero and defendants Gotti and Carneglia, in addition to their involvement in illegal gambling and loansharking, were principals in an extensive narcotics enterprise that distributed large quantities of heroin, and, to a lesser extent, cocaine and methaqualone tablets. 17 We have briefly described hereinabove the major events which occurred from the completion of the primary government investigation to the commencement of the third trial of Gotti and Carneglia before Judge Bartels. Gotti and Carneglia do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the government at that trial, which consisted primarily of recordings of telephonic and other conversations resulting from the surveillance described hereinabove. Rather the principal issue raised on the appeal, according to appellants' counsel, is whether the trial judge erred in his handling of the events that took place after the jury retired to consider its verdict. 18 Counsel delivered their summations to the jury on May 16, 1989. Earlier that day, the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York received a telephone call from an attorney representing a man named Walter Arnold, who was a resident of Kings Park, New York. The attorney reported that Arnold had received the following anonymous note: Walter Arnold 19 84 Broadview Ave. Kings Park, LI NY Dear Mr. Arnold: 20 I am writing this letter as a concerned neighbor and friend. 21 It has come to my attention that you are a juror on the Gotti trial. Our neighbor who lives on the same block, Federal Agent William Noon is in charge of the Gotti investigation. 22 As you know, Kings Park is a very small community. Our children go to the same schools, we shop in the same stores. 23 It seems improper that you be on the same jury where the head FBI agent in charge is your neighbor. 24 In all conscience you should bring this matter to the attention of the judge, goverment [sic] and the court. 25 I know you will do the right thing. 26 A Concerned Neighbor and Friend. 27 As it turned out, Arnold was not on the jury. However, the attorney reported that Arnold's neighbor, whose name was not mentioned, was a juror. It was subsequently determined that Walter Arnold's neighbor was anonymous Juror No. 9. Following this discovery, and prior to the commencement of jury deliberations, Judge Bartels dismissed Juror No. 9 and replaced him with alternate Juror No. 1. 28 On May 22, 1989, the sixth day of jury deliberations, the jury sent out the following note: One juror refuses to vote, are there any guidelines to help us. Judge Bartels decided to give an Allen charge, see Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-02, 17 S.Ct. 154, 157-58, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), in response to that note. Defense counsel asked to see the proposed instruction before it was delivered, but Judge Bartels declined to allow this, stating: On behalf of the United States District Court I'm not giving it to you. He then delivered the following instruction to the jury: 29 I will read the note that the court received from the jury. One juror refuses to vote. Are there any guidelines to help us? 30 Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you are aware in order to return a verdict in this case, each juror must agree thereto. 31 In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. You should, therefore, consider this case, and deliberate upon it, and reach a verdict without fear or sympathy. You must remember at all times, that the government has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 32 Now, the jury in this case was selected carefully. When you filled out the juror questionnaire, and again when you were interviewed, each of you was asked, is there any reason why you could not render a fair and impartial verdict in this case? Each of you said no. All jurors took an oath when the panel was picked in this case that they would try this case and, a true verdict rendered [sic] according to the evidence and the law. 33 So then, every juror swore to render a verdict. To render a verdict each juror must vote, one way or the other. The court is not interested which way you vote and reminds you that no juror should surrender his or her honest conviction as to the weight of effect of the evidence for the sole purpose of determining a verdict, and a juror should not hesitate to re-examine his own views and change his opinion if convinced it's erroneous, but he should vote. 34 The court is not interested who the juror is who has not yet voted and is not interested in the way the other jurors have voted or not voted. The matter is completely open. No juror, however, should in any way feel coerced by any comments I made. 35 Therefore, would you be kind enough to return to deliberate. 36 Later that day, the jury sent out another note, which read as follows: While attempting to reach a decision concerning the innocence or guilt of the defendants, a juror refuses to discuss the case at all. Following a colloquy with counsel, Judge Bartels determined to conduct an individual voir dire of the juror who was referred to in the two notes, with all counsel present, and ascertain the reasons for the juror's failure to vote and to deliberate. The defense objected, claiming [i]t's an intrusion into the deliberative process. 37 The conference was then held in Judge Bartels' chambers. The juror in question turned out to be Juror No. 9--the former Alternate Juror No. 1. Juror No. 9 indicated that the note was incorrect, and that he and all of the other jurors had voted following the court's Allen charge. He also stated that he had discussed the case in my own way with them, adding that his fellow jurors had been trying to persuade me to vote one way or the other, and that I vote on my conscious [sic]. Juror No. 9 was then sent back to the jury room. At this point, the defense moved for a mistrial, and the court denied the motion. 38 Shortly after Juror no. 9 returned to the jury room, Judge Bartels delivered a second Allen charge to the jury, over the defense's objection, as follows: 39 I have received notice that the juror who you mentioned in your last memorandum has discussed the case and has voted. 40 I have also received notice that you are deadlocked 4 and I'm going to ask you to try once more. This case has been on trial for over five and a half weeks and the jury has been sequestered for, approximately, five and a half days. I do not believe that the case can be submitted to twelve men and women who are more intelligent or competent to decide it. 41 In order to return a verdict in this case each juror must agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous if it's to be a verdict. However, you only have to vote and you do not have to agree. You can disagree amoung [sic] yourselves, but you do have to vote one way or the other. You do not have to bring in, however, a verdict on all the counts at the same time. In your deliberation, jurors have a duty to consult with each other, and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement if it can be done without violence to any individual judgment. 42 Although each juror must decide the case for himself, this should only be done after an impartial consideration of the evidence with his fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberation a juror should not hesitate to re-examine his own view and to change his opinion if convinced it is erroneous. Each juror who finds himself to be in the minority should reconsider his view in the light of the opinion of the jurors of the majority. Conversely each juror finding himself in the majority should give equal consideration to the view of the minority. 43 No juror should surrender his honest conviction as the weight or effect of the evidence of his fellow jurors or for the purpose of determining a verdict. 44 But remember also that after full deliberation and consideration of all the evidence, it's your duty to try to agree upon a verdict if you can do so without violating your individual judgment and conscience. 45 I'll ask you to retire and resume your deliberations for such time you in your conscientious judgment seems reasonable with the hope that you conscientiously reach an agreement. 46 The court then offered the jury the option of continuing its deliberations or retiring for the evening, and the jury returned to the jury room to consider the matter. A short time later, the jury sent out two notes. The first one stated: The jury will stay late this evening and try to work things out. The second note read: A juror requests a private conference with Judge Bartels. 47 In response to the second note, Judge Bartels instructed the jury that he could not have a private conference with an individual juror, but that any juror could ask him questions by sending him a note. 48 Thereafter, the court received a note from Juror No. 9, which read as follows: 5/22/89