Opinion ID: 622756
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Property Obtained from Local 1235 Members

Text: The recorded March 6, 2007 conversations between Coppola and Edward Aulisi provide direct evidence that Coppola obtained and conspired to obtain property belonging to the members of Local 1235 for the benefit of the Genovese family. The conversations indicate that the property at issue was both tangible, insofar as Coppola received monies belonging to the union membership, and intangible, insofar as he deprived members of their § 501(a) right to have union presidents hold union money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and obtained for himself the right to dispose of such money and property for the benefit of the Genovese family. In reaching this conclusion, we assume that the jury interpreted certain coded terms to reference three Local 1235 presidents: (1) the Vet referenced then-Local 1235 president, Vincent Aulisi, based on the context of the conversation as well as the fact that Vincent Aulisi's initials, VA, are an acronym for the Veterans Administration; (2) Cong referenced Vincent Colucci, based on Coppola's statements that Cong had the same name as the younger Aulisi's Pop, i.e., Vincent, and was the first one, i.e., the first Local 1235 president to align the union with the Genovese family, as testified to by Barone, Gov't Ex. TR-CD-7 (T6) at 7; [13] and (3) Bull referenced outgoing Local 1235 president Albert Cernadas, based on Coppola's statement that a party was being thrown for him, which was corroborated by agent testimony. With this understanding, a reasonable jury could have found that, in the March 6 conversations, the younger Aulisi was conveying to Coppola his father's assurances that Local 1235 would continue to make tribute payments to the Genovese family. Edward Aulisi reported to Coppola that outgoing Local 1235 president Cernadas had made statements suggesting that month[ly] payments and Christmases were gonna end when he stepped down as president. Gov't Ex. TR-CD-7 (T6) at 6. By themselves, such statements confirmed that Coppola and the Genovese family had obtained membership money in the past. The younger Aulisi, however, went further, stating that his father had told Cernadas that he was wrong about the payments ending: [T]he beat goes on, whether you're here or not. Id. Indeed, Edward Aulisi told Coppola that payments not only would continue, but also that amounts collected had almost doubled, id., and that he had another chunk for Coppola, representing approximately three months' payments, Gov't Ex. TR-CD-7 (T7) at 1-2. These statements permitted the jury to find that Coppola was involved in a continuing scheme to obtain union members' tangible and intangible property. In urging a different view of the March 6 conversations, Coppola submits that the government's interpretation of coded references and its assertion that the conversations concerned money payments were uncorroborated. In any event, Coppola asserts that, even if the conversations did reference money payments, the source was not necessarily Local 1235 membership funds. The payments could as easily have come from Edward Aulisi's trucking business or from Vincent Aulisi's personal funds. The argument is not convincing. As our discussion of code names in the March 6, 2007 conversations demonstrates, the references are not as obscure as Coppola urges. Nor are the interpretations and inferences urged by the government so speculative as to preclude adoption by a reasonable jury familiar with the totality of the evidence. Indeed, the inferences are entirely consistent with the totality of the evidence, which established the common scheme or plan employed by the Genovese family to control substantial parts of the New York-New Jersey waterfront and to extort millions of dollars from businesses and unions alike through fear. Insofar as Coppola hypothesizes alternative sources for the monies paid, we are mindful that the task of choosing among permissible competing inferences is for the jury, not a reviewing court. United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145, 154-55 (2d Cir.2006). Coppola was free to argueand in fact did arguealternative inferences in urging the jury to interpret the March 6 conversations narrowly in his favor, but we cannot conclude that a reasonable jury was compelled as a matter of law to adopt Coppola's arguments. Assuming, as we must, that the jury drew the inferences permissibly urged by the government, we conclude that the March 6 conversations provide direct evidence that Coppola had obtained and conspired to obtain tangible property in the form of Local 1235 membership monies and intangible property in the form of the members' § 501(a) right to have union presidents dispose of that money for the sole benefit of members and the union, not for the benefit of the Genovese family. This part of Coppola's sufficiency challenge, therefore, fails on the merits. [14]