Opinion ID: 3012838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Appellants’ Convictions

Text: 4 The governing statute, 18 U.S.C. §1955, makes it a federal crime to participate in the conduct of an illegal gambling business only if five or more persons are involved in the activity, and the business is in continuous operation for at least thirty days. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the requisite number of persons involved, and also contend that the statute exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Both defendants also assert that federal jurisdiction was obtained only as the result of impermissible manipulation by Government agents, and/or that they were entrapped into committing the offenses.
This court has long held that §1955 is constitutionally valid. United States v. Riehl, 460 F.2d 454 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Ceraso, 467 F.2d 653, 657-658 (3d Cir. 1972). And, contrary to appellants’ argument, we are satisfied that the continued validity of these cases has not been undermined by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) and Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000). Large-scale gambling obviously has commercial implications not present in the cases cited by appellants. All of the circuit courts of appeal which have considered the issue since Lopez have concluded that Section 1955 continues to be valid under the Commerce Clause. See United States v. Lee, 173 F.3d 809 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Boyd, 149 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Zizzo, 120 F.3d 1338 (7th Cir. 1997); 5 and United States v. Wall, 92 F.3d 1444 (6th Cir. 1996). We therefore reject appellants’ constitutional arguments.
During the period covered by the indictment, in addition to the three owners, Amati, Cornetta and Hansen, the following persons participated, at least to some extent, in the illegal operation: the owner/lessor of the poker machines; an employee of the owner of the poker machines, who serviced and maintained them, Debra Vlanich, and three waitresses. The Government concedes, as it must, that neither Cornetta nor Hansen may be counted toward the five required participants. Under any view of the matter, therefore, the required total of five participants can be reached only if one includes at least one of the three waitresses, and also includes both the owner of the poker machines and the mechanic who serviced them. Appellants argue first that the waitresses did not actually participate in the illegal gambling operation, since they merely served coffee and breakfast to the gamblers. There was, however, ample evidence to permit the jury to conclude that the waitresses were actively involved in handling payoffs and resetting the machines from time to time. It is also clear that, although the operation did not require the participation of three waitresses at any given time, it was reasonably necessary to engage the services of more than one waitress. Appellants further argue that none of the waitresses should properly be counted 6 among the five required participants because they were hired by Trooper Cornetta, in his capacity as the manager of the restaurant. Thus, according to appellants, either the waitresses were Government agents themselves, or, at the very least, the Government manufactured federal jurisdiction by hiring them in order to achieve the required total of five participants. We reject these contentions. Amati and the two undercover Government agents purchased a going business which had video-poker machines and employed three waitresses. The scope of the operation was not expanded by Cornetta and Hansen. Mr. Amati was well aware of the number and identity of employees, and of the active involvement of the waitresses in the day-to-day conduct of the gambling enterprise. We are satisfied, therefore, both that the waitresses can properly be included in achieving the total of five or more participants, and that their inclusion does not support a charge that federal jurisdiction was artificially created.

Ms. Vlanich contends that several errors were made with respect to her proffered defense of entrapment. The defense theory was that Ms. Vlanich was a lonely widow, unusually vulnerable to male blandishments, and was led astray by the attentions of Trooper Cornetta who allegedly “wined and dined” her on various occasions. Because it was disclosed before trial that Ms. Vlanich would be claiming entrapment, the Government was allowed, during its case in chief, to present evidence of her earlier 7 involvement in illegal gambling activities. She and her late husband had long operated a bar-restaurant with illegal video-poker machines. At trial, in support of her entrapment theory, Ms. Vlanich sought to present the testimony of mental-health experts to the effect that, as a result of her widowhood and lonely existence, Ms. Vlanich was unusually susceptible to male attention in social situations. The district judge ruled that the proffered psychiatric evidence was inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §17(a) because it did not constitute evidence that the “defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of [her] acts”. As noted by this court in United States v. Pohlot, 827 F.2d, 889, 896 (3d Cir. 1987) Section 17(a) does not bar all evidence of mental disease or defect other than that applicable to an insanity defense, but the use of such evidence is strictly limited to that which “negates specific intent or any other mens rea, which are elements of the offense.” Id. at 890. It is clear that the proffered expert testimony did not purport to show that Ms. Vlanich was legally insane or incapable of forming the intent to commit the crime charged; the real issue is whether Section 17(a) renders such evidence inadmissible to show that Ms. Vlanich was unusually susceptible to inducement. A related issue is whether, regardless of Section 17(a), the proffered evidence in this case could properly have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 704 because of its minimal probative value and the likelihood of confusing the jury because of the close similarity to a 8 proscribed “diminished capacity” defense. After excluding the proffered expert testimony, the district judge ultimately ruled that, as a matter of law, the evidence did not support an entrapment defense on behalf of Ms. Vlanich. On appeal, Ms. Vlanich contends (1) it was error to admit evidence of previous criminal involvement, (2) it was error to exclude the proffered expert testimony, and (3) it was error to refuse an entrapment charge. If the evidence of Ms. Vlanich’s previous criminal activity would have been inadmissible except to refute her defense of entrapment, a contention that this evidence should not have been received unless entrapment issues were to be submitted to the jury might well have at least arguable merit. To permit the Government to introduce damaging evidence during its case in chief for the sole purpose of refuting a non-issue seems indeed likely to impair the fundamental fairness of the trial. In the present case, however, there was no error. Evidence of Ms. Vlanich’s earlier involvement in the video-poker industry consisted of her own statements, recorded by the undercover operatives during the formation and conduct of the conspiracy. Ms. Vlanich was enthusiastic about the prospects of success of the Finleyville Coffee Shop, and encouraged Cornetta and Hansen to proceed with Mr. Amati’s proposals because she and her late husband had made so much money in their earlier venture. Thus, the evidence of her previous criminality was clearly admissible, not only because it demonstrated her own familiarity with the “ins and outs” of video-poker gambling (thus, 9 her “knowledge” under Rule 704) but also because it bore directly upon the formation of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. With respect to the admissibility of the expert testimony, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the proffered testimony was admissible in support of an entrapment defense, because the trial court properly ruled that, as a matter of law, an entrapment defense was not available to Ms. Vlanich, and this ruling was not affected by exclusion of the proffered expert testimony. The undisputed facts establish that no Government agent induced Ms. Vlanich to participate in the conspiracy. She was introduced to the operation by her paramour, Mr. Amati, and acted at his request and pursuant to his instructions at all times. Thus, unless Mr. Amati himself was entrapped -- an issue which will be addressed below -- there is simply no basis for charging the Government with having induced M s. Vlanich to participate. In addition, of course, the evidence showed conclusively that Ms. Vlanich was predisposed to engage in video-poker activities. Absent proof that the Government induced her criminal behavior, and that she was not predisposed to commit the crime, Ms. Vlanich did not have a defense of entrapment. United States v. Wright, 921 F.2d 42; United States v. Fedroff, 874 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1989).
Because the initial overtures for M r. Amati’s participation came from Mr. 10 Hansen and Trooper Cornetta, and because the actual operation of the Finleyville diner was committed to their management, it is understandable that the district court, from an abundance of caution, submitted to the jury the question of whether Mr. Amati was entitled to an entrapment defense. By its verdict, the jury found that he was not entrapped, and there is no basis for disturbing that finding. Indeed, the evidence of Mr. Amati’s predisposition was compelling, and amply justified the jury’s resolution of the issue. Appellants’ convictions will therefore be affirmed.