Opinion ID: 784137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Angelina's Sufficiency of the Evidence Challenge to Count Eight.

Text: 40 Defendant Angelina challenges, on the ground of insufficient evidence, his conviction on Count Eight, which charges that from August 1997 through the Spring of 1999, he conspired with defendants Ciancaglini, Borgesi, and Mazzone to extort Michael Casolaro's sports bookmaking business. Casolaro testified that he was approached by Ciancaglini regarding entering into a partnership as to that bookmaking business, and that he wanted no part of that partnership. A meeting was held which was attended by Casolaro, Ciancaglini, Mazzone, and an individual known to Casolaro as Louie Sheep. It was determined that Casolaro would take [action from] John Ciancaglini's guys, and Louie Sheep was handling Marty's guys and Georgie's guys and Stevie's guys. Marty was defendant Angelina. 41 Although Angelina was not at the meeting at which the partnership was forced on Casolaro, a reasonable juror could conclude that Casolaro's reference to Marty's guys was a reference to individuals who had been placing bets with Angelina. On cross-examination, Casolaro explained that he knew that Angelina had guys calling in that were betting, [b]ecause when we did the counts here's Marty's guys and here's this guy's guys and that guy's guys. This supports the conclusion that when Casolaro testified that Louie Sheep would be handling Marty's guys, both the prosecutor and Casolaro understood this to mean those individuals who regularly placed bets with Angelina. This conclusion surely cuts against the possibility that Angelina was a mere bettor. 42 Also supporting the conclusion that Angelina was a part of the conspiracy to extort a partnership share in Casolaro's business is the following exchange between the prosecutor and Casolaro: 43 Q Now why did you continue in a partnership that you didn't want to be in in the first place? 44 A For the first place, I didn't want to get into it, but when I was talking to John [Ciancaglini], he kind of said I had to. And I was saying, I don't want to. I don't want to be in this situation. Because I know — to me, I figured it was going to be a no win situation, and he said, you got to, or you got to move, and so I wasn't prepared to move at the time, so I basically just went with the agreement. 45 Q And now you said that something happened toward the end of March, around — I guess around — that would be about March of 1998, where you — if I recall your testimony correctly, you said that George Borgesi and Marty Angelina both sort of dropped out of the thing? 46 A Yes. 47 A reasonable juror could infer that the thing that Angelina and Borgesi dropped out of was the partnership discussed in the previous question and answer. Before Angelina dropped out, however, there had been a bad football season and Casolaro, as a result, was hemorrhaging money. Nonetheless, he had to come up with cash to pay Angelina the $1800.00 he owed him. He turned over what cash he had, $1100.00, and told Borgesi that he needed the approximately $700.00 Borgesi's book owed him to pay Angelina. Borgesi did not want to pay, but it was finally agreed that the $700.00 would be paid directly to Angelina to satisfy the remainder of Casolaro's debt. 48 The following exchange further supports the conclusion that Angelina was a partner in the conspiracy: 49 Q And who came to you and asked you for money at Christmas of 1997? 50 A Marty Angelina. 51 Q The same Marty Angelina that was supposed to be your partner in this bookmaking operation? 52 A Yeah. 53 Angelina, whose career in the LCN stretched back to the early 1980s, clearly knew of the extortionate nature of the LCN's partnership with Casolaro. Angelina had a relationship with Casolaro, independent of the bookmaking operation, that centered around annual extortions, termed the Christmas shakes. 4 With regard to the Christmas shakes, which were naked demands for cash, no more and no less, and qualitatively different from the bookmaking extortion, Casolaro testified that Angelina did not have to threaten him explicitly with violence because it was understood, because of the intimidation factor, and because he feared someone taking a `shot' into his book. It is certainly reasonable to infer from this that Angelina was aware that Casolaro had no choice but to do business with the LCN. 5 Angelina's challenge to his conviction on Count Eight is rejected. 54 D. Defendant Lutz's Sufficiency of the Evidence Challenge to Count Sixteen (and Racketeering Act 18) 55 While defendant Lutz challenges his convictions on all of the extortion counts (and the provens on the concomitant RA's), we are persuaded that he is correct, but only as to Count Sixteen (and RA18), which charged him with extorting a $1000 contribution for the George Borgesi Legal Defense Fund from bookmaker William James Patton in September 1999. It is, we suggest, a somewhat pyrrhic victory, for it appears, at least to us, that under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, Lutz's offense level and, hence, his guideline range would not change. 56 Although we have little or no confidence in Lutz's claim that he had a voluntary business relationship with Patton, we, nonetheless, agree with him that there was insufficient evidence of his involvement in the September 1999 extortion of $1000 from Patton, whether his supposed extortion be by threatening Patton with physical violence, economic harm, or knowingly exploiting a fear that he knew Patton harbored. Lutz was clearly involved in coercing Patton to lay off bets from his bookmaking operation to Borgesi's operation; Lutz clearly extorted Christmas shakes from Patton in various years; and Lutz may well have facilitated the extortion of funds for the Borgesi Defense Fund in September of 1999 from Mark Tashie, Patton's bookmaking partner, by pressuring Steven Sharkey, another partner who pled guilty before trial, to keep after Tashie for a contribution from Tashie and then collecting that contribution. But there is little or no evidence that Lutz extorted the $1000 from Patton, and Patton himself testified that he did not give money to the Defense Fund in September 1999, although he believed Sharkey had done so. It is not without significance, we note, that the government has pointed to precious little, if any, evidence supporting Lutz's conviction on Count Sixteen. 57 E. Defendant Lutz's Challenge to the Attribution to Him of Certain Victim Losses 58 Defendant Lutz argues that he should not have received a three-level enhancement to his offense level based on losses which were sustained prior to 1996 when the extortion of bookmakers Patton and Tashie began, an enhancement ordered solely as a result of the testimony of cooperating witness Gaetano Scafidi. We agree. 59 Scafidi was on the stand for seven days, four of them on direct examination. His extensive and often graphic testimony concentrated on and detailed his involvement and the involvement of the defendants and others in murders and other acts of violence. We kill each other, he observed at one point, and it was just part of our life. Defendant Lutz was rarely mentioned by Scafidi in the course of his lengthy testimony, and when he was mentioned, it was almost in passing. Thus, aside from a couple of references to Lutz's participation in the Christmas shakes of 1992, Lutz's name came up almost exclusively in connection with an insurance scam, irrelevant here, and the fact that he was a close associate of defendant Borgesi and frequented the clubhouse used by the Merlino faction of the LCN, a guilt by association or guilt by mere presence argument that, without more, would not support the enhancement. 6 60 The more was Lutz's supposed involvement in the 1992 Christmas shakes. At sentencing, the government argued as follows: 61 Your Honor, Gaetano Scafidi testified that ... there was a Christmas party [in 1992] at which approximately 75 to 100 bookmakers and other criminals were extorted ... and they came to that party and gave Joseph Merlino varying amounts of money; $2,000, $5,000. It's my understanding that Mr. Scafidi testified that Mr. Lutz was at that party and participated in those extortions, Your Honor. 62