Opinion ID: 770518
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Extortion from Sal Vitello

Text: 70 Silverio (Sal) Vitello testifed that he paid Vito Giacalone $1,000 per week for about 10 years to assure labor peace. He also stated that he gave Giacalone randomcash payments and Christmas bonuses. He concluded that he paid about $1,000,000 to Giacalone in total. The government sought to use this testimony as a basis for an additional amount of forfeiture. The district court rejected that position, stating that [t]he government offered no evidence to show that the money paid to Giacalone was ever shared by others in the Detroit partnership. 71 In our view, the evidence was sufficient to show that Giacalone obtained $1,000,000 from Sal Vitello for his assistance in using his influence and strong-arm support in challenging the unions. We find Giacalone was obviously empowered to help Vitello based on his membership in the Detroit family. Although the district court declined to forfeit these proceeds because there was no offer of evidence to show that the money paid to Giacalone was ever shared by others in the Detroit partnership, we find this conclusion by the district court to be clearly erroneous, certainly as to Vito Giacalone himself. 72 Giacalone pled guilty to the conspiracy allegations in count two, but count one charges were realleged and incorporated by reference in count two. Giacalone's activities with Vitello, acknowledged to have occurred by reason of his guilty plea, were related to the alleged purposes of the RICO conspiracy and his acts were ongoing and reflected continuity as discussed in the conspiracy principles section hereinabove. Even if the evidence supports a finding that Giacalone acted on his own in extorting money from Vitello, it is not determinative that [he] committed the crime to further his own agenda, if indeed he was only able to commit the crime by virtue of his position with the enterprise. Salinas, 522 U.S. at 63. Thus, the district court clearly erred in requiring that the government demonstrate that Giacalone shared with his co-conspirators the proceeds received from Vitello. The court should have assessed the forfeiture amount of $1,000,000 against Giacalone and Jack Tocco, jointly and severally. 73