Opinion ID: 536025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Barbooth Gambling.

Text: 37 As to count two, appellant takes a rifle-shot approach: he effectively concedes the legal adequacy of the government's proof in most respects, but asserts that the prosecution did not show that at least five persons were involved in conducting the unlawful barbooth gambling. Appellant is shooting blanks. 38 We start by observing that the five person minimum is expressly made an element of the offense with which Zannino was charged. 8 In the lexicon of section 1955, the term conduct embraces all who participate in the operation of the specified gambling business, that is, each and every person who performs any act, function, or duty necessary or helpful in the business' ordinary operation. As we read it, the statute of conviction applies even to individuals who have no role in managing or controlling the business and who do not share in its profits. Cf. Joshua 9:21 (discussing hewers of wood and drawers of water). In sum, section 1955 proscribes any type or degree of participation in an illegal gambling business, except participation as a mere bettor. Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 70-71 n. 26, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2182 n. 26, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978); United States v. DiMuro, 540 F.2d 503, 508 (1st Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 733, 50 L.Ed.2d 749 (1977). Once this coign of vantage is established, the dampness of appellant's powder becomes readily apparent. 39 Based on tape recorded conversations and other evidence, the government's expert witness, Daly, testified that at least five persons were involved in the managing, financing or running of [the] barbooth game from at least Christmas of 1980 through March of 1981. He identified the five as Angiulo, Zannino, Francesco Angiulo, Vulgaropoulus, and Roberto, and described their roles in the enterprise. Appellant wastes little time on the first four--and with good reason; the evidence as to them was plenteous. He trains his guns instead on Roberto's inclusion, assailing the admission of Daly's testimony and denigrating the government's ancillary evidence. The volley misfires. 40 The court's allowance of Daly's opinion evidence cannot be faulted. See United States v. Ladd, 885 F.2d 954, 959 (1st Cir.1989) (discussing trial judge's discretion in determining both admissibility of expert testimony and particular expert's qualifications); United States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1310 (1st Cir.1987) (similar); see also United States v. Lamattina, 889 F.2d 1191, 1194 (1st Cir.1989). The jury, we think, was entitled to consider Daly's testimony and assess its credibility and probative value in light of all the evidence. Furthermore, Daly's testimony seems sufficiently record-rooted to sustain a finding that Roberto participated in operating the barbooth game. 41 Our conclusion concerning the adequacy of the proof anent Roberto's complicity, and thus, Zannino's guilt, is bulwarked by the other evidence corroborating Roberto's involvement. We offer a representative sampling: 42 1. Roberto was at North Margin St. no less than five times during the surveillance period. 43 2. Roberto, testifying as a defense witness, admitted being at the Demosthenes Club on various occasions in 1980-81 while barbooth was being played. (Although he said he was merely a player, the jury was not bound to believe that aspect of his story.) 44 3. In a February 1981 conversation, Zannino told Angiulo that he was sending for Roberto and Roberto's partner, Vulgaropoulus, to resolve a discrepancy regarding the profits from the barbooth gambling business. 45 4. In a March 1981 conversation, Zannino and Angiulo gloated over the money that Roberto was bringing them from the game. 46 5. In November 1981, Vulgaropoulus and Roberto were arrested when state authorities raided the barbooth game. Gambling paraphernalia was seized on that occasion. 47 Viewing this evidence in conjunction with Daly's testimony, a rational jury could easily have found, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Roberto performed a necessary, or at least facilitative, role in the ordinary operation of the barbooth gambling business. 48