Opinion ID: 295985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence of the alleged conspiracy

Text: 30 The next important issue raised by the defendants is whether they were entitled to judgments of acquittal on the conspiracy count. Under the teaching of Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 74-75, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), the prosecution must establish by substantial evidence, restricted to proof aliunde, the fact that a conspiracy existed. 'Once the existence of a conspiracy is clearly establish, slight evidence may be sufficient to connect a defendant with it.' United States v. Cohen, 197 F.2d 26, 29 (3rd Cir. 1954); United States v. Weber, 437 F.2d 327, (3rd Cir., 1970). These principles require that in assessing the evidence of the existence of a conspiracy and each defendant's connection with it, hearsay statements of other alleged co-conspirators (including co-defendants) must be excluded from consideration. Only when the Court finds that there is enough evidence of a conspiracy and a particular person is connected with it, may hearsay statements made by co-conspirators be used against him. 15 31 We must begin our examination of the evidence with the proposition that the Government is entitled, once a jury returns a verdict of guilty, to have this Court view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in order to sustain the convictions. United States v. Weiss,431 F.2d 1402, 1407 (10th Cir. 1970). At trial, the Government produced only Martin and Wasserman from among the victims to testify. The defendants the victims to testify. Most of the following details, therefore, come from the testimony of Martin and Wasserman, and will serve here to fill in the interstices of the factual outline given in Part I of this opinion. 32 During the months of August, September and October, 1966, may calls were placed between the telephones billed to De Cavalcante, Brennan and Dello Russo. The Government introduced no evidence concerning who made the calls, or what conversations occurred during the course of these calls. 33 Prior to September, 1966, Martin had known Brennan and Dello Russo for about two months, while Wasserman had known them for five or six months. During the five or six month period, Brennan tole Wasserman that he had known De Cavalcante for over twenty years. Brennan 'always told' Wasserman that De Cavalcante 'was the big boss of rackets in New Jersey.' 16 The Government argues that this statement helps prove the reasonableness of the fear of the victims of the extortion. However, there is no evidence that any of the other alleged victims over heard this statement, or held a similar opinion for other reasons. We note that Brennan apparently mentioned De Cavalcante to Wasserman, both before and after the time when the alleged conspiracy began. 34 On September 28, 1966, the night the gamblers were robbed, Vastola and Annunziata drew their guns immediately after Smith gave the signal to the gamblers that he was about to introduce the crooked dice into the game. Vastola and Annunziata told all the others, including Brennan and Dello Russon, to remove their pants, and then took all of their money. To Coogan, Vastola said 'I am surprised at you, Tom. You know a lot of good people. And I am surprised that you would rob your friends, all your good friends, just rob them the way you have been doing.' Before he left, Vastola had hit Coogan and Wasserman, had threatened Smith and Martin, but said nothing to Brennan nor Dello Russo. Vastola then demanded $300 per week from the gamblers. As he and Annunziata were leaving, Vastola said to the others, 'Go see who you knew and see if it will do you any good,' or 'See who you know and see if you can get it straightened out, if you can.' 35 The first person among the gamblers to speak after Vastola and Annunziata left was Brennan. He said, 'I will call my friend, Sam, and see if I can't get this straightened out,' or he said, 'I will see Sam and get it straightened out for you.' Because Vastola's blow and knocked out Wasserman, the gamblers took the latter to a hospital and then met at a restaurant in Philadelphia to discuss what action to take. All agreed that Brennan should ask De Cavalcante to help them get back their money from Vastola, and settle the dispute. 36 Brennan arranged a meeting with De Cavalcante, and the gamblers went from Pennsylvania to see De Cavalcante at a Holiday Inn in Kenilworth, New Jersey two days later (September 30, 1966). At the Holiday Inn, De Cavalcante told Brennan, 'You never bring me anything but trouble; that is all you ever bring me. When are you going to bring me something good?' Saying that he had the fellows who had robbed them, De Cavalcante told the gamblers to come back to see him later that day at his office. Present at the meeting that afternoon were De Cavalcante, Vastola and the six gamblers. Vastola declared he had a 'legitimate beef' against the gamblers, that they had been cheating 'his people,' and that he wanted $20,000 from them. De Cavalcante calmed Vastola and told the gamblers he would try to work out a settlement with Vastola. As De Cavalcante and Vastola left the room to discuss the matter, Vastola took a ring from Smith's finger. Brennan told Smith, 'He can't do this, you are in Sam's office; you are under Sam's protection. I am going out and get the ring back.' Shortly thereafter, Brennan returned with the ring. 37 De Cavalcante then came into the room alone, and said the best 'settlement' he could persuade Vastola to accept was $2,000 from each of the six gamblers. When they complained of not having that much money, he told them 'If this deal isn't satisfactory to you, you can go back you do business with him (Vastola). As mad as this guy is, you are lucky you are not in the river.' Wasserman testified that De Cavalcante said, 'You fellows don't know what a break you are getting. You are lucky you are with me. If you wasn't with me you wuld be in the river. I am trying to get this thing straightened out for you. You are going to have to pay this.' Specifically to Martin, De Cavalcante said, 'You are Italian, aren't you? Then you know what happens if you don't do what you are supposed to do.' Throughout the meeting, De Cavalcante treated everyone 'in a gentlemanly manner.' 38 After expressing some reluctance to accept the proposed deal, all six men finally agreed to make installment payments. But when Vastola was called into the room and informed of the 'settlement' terms, he demanded cash. De Cavalcante offered to pay the money to Vastola, if the others would repay him. Since De Cavalcante already owed money to Brennan, the latter was told his $2,000 would be deducted from that debt. De Cavalcante told Dello Russo he could go to a money lender in Brooklyn for his share of the money, and that De Cavalcante would be Dello Russo's guarantee to the lender for the loan. De Cavalcante then arranged with the four other men for future payments. One such payment was made the next day, October 1st, by Martin and Smith. It is the above meeting on September 30th, and the payment on October 1st which forms the basis of the two substantive counts against De Cavalcante. 39 On October 26, 1966, Martin was called before the grand jury concerning the events described above. Brennan and Dello Russo visited Martin on October 27th and Brennan asked Martin whether he had invoked his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himself before the grand jury. When Martin replied that he had, Brennan said, 'It's a good thing you did, because anybody that knows anything doesn't testify against Sam. Sam is not worried about this. It is all going to blow over. He can take care of it. He wants his money, anyway.' The grand jury investigation proceeded, and at the end of November, an effort was made by Vastola to favricate evidence in order to protect De Cavalcante. Vastola told the gamblers that the Government was 'out to get' De Cavalcante, and arranged for them to participate in the making of a film in a New York City hotel room. In the film, they said they were all good friends and that no extortion had occurred. 17 40 The foregoing constitutes the essence of the prosecution's case, including several statements whose admissibility turns on the establishment by extrinsic substantial evidence of the existence of a conspiracy. Viewing all the evidence presented, there is not a sufficient basis upon which the jury could reasonably find a 'common design' or 'concerted action' proven by the Government. 18 United States v. Lester, 282 F.2d 750 (3rd Cir. 1960); United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 433 F.2d 174, 182 (3rd Cir. 1970). Rather, all the connecting links needed in the story to prove a conspiracy-- that is, the existence of an agreement-- are supplied only by the prosecution's arguments. Judge Friendly has stated the applicable principles as follows: 41 'Although it is usual and often necessary in conspiracy cases for the agreement to be proved by inference from acts, the gist of the offense remains the agreement, and it is therefore essential to determine what kind of agreement or understanding existed as to each defendnat.' United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376, 384 (2d Cir. 1964). 42 Under this standard, there is insufficient evidence to prove an agreement by and between De Cavalcante, Vastola, Annunziata, Brennan and Dello Russo to induce the Philadelphia gamblers to travel from Pennsylvania to New Jersey for the purpose of extortion. Certainly De Cavalcante, Brennan and Dello Russo knew each other before September, 1966. But this associateion alone cannot convert Brennan's suggestion to the other gamblers that De Cavalcante might be able to help them in their dispute with Vastola into a conspiratorial inducement to come under De Cavalcante's power. De Cavalcante's statements during the meeting at Kenilworth would support his contention that vis-a-vis Vastola and the gamblers, he was 'merely' an 'arbitrator,' not in conspiracy with one faction to the dispute. Vastola's statements and actions, while criminal, hardly amount to evidence showing a conspiracy. It may well be that the Government couls have proven some type of unlawful conspiracy in late November, 1966 to shield De Cavalcante from the grand jury investigation, but no crime based on their theory is charged.