United States v. Dioguardi

Decision Date10 December 1956
Citation147 F. Supp. 421
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. John DIOGUARDI, also known as "Johnny Dio," Charles Tuso, Theodore Rij, also known as "Teddy Ray," also known as "Skinny," and Charles Salvatore Carlino, also known as "Charley Woppie."
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., Robert Kirtland and Arthur Christy, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, for the Government.

Irving Mendelson and Charlotte C. D'Antonio, New York City, for defendant Charles Salvatore Carlino.

Goldstein & Goldstein, New York City, for defendant Charles Tuso, Gilbert Goldstein and Lawrence Kovalsky, New York City, of counsel.

William W. Kleinman, Brooklyn, N. Y., and Noah L. Braunstein, New York City, for defendant John Dioguardi.

Harold O. N. Frankel and Irving Spieler, New York City, for defendant Theodore Rij.

HERLANDS, District Judge.

This motion for a change of venue is based upon the defense claim that it is highly improbable that the defendants can obtain a fair and impartial trial at this time in this district because the mind of the public has been inflamed by the current publicity concerning the defendants. This motion must be viewed and decided in its factual setting and against the background of recently concluded court proceedings.

This indictment was filed September 26, 1956. On November 9, 1956 this case (referred to herein as the Dio case) was assigned for trial. At the same time, another case, which I shall refer to as the Miranti case (involving three other defendants, Miranti, Bando and Leo Telvi, charged in the same indictment with being confederates of the defendants Dioguardi, Tuso, Rij, and Charles Carlino) was also assigned for trial. The Dio case was set down for trial to commence immediately after the conclusion of the Miranti case.

The trial of the Miranti case began on November 9 and terminated on December 7 with the sentencing of Miranti, Bando and Leo Telvi. The trial schedule of the Dio case fixed December 10 for the hearing of motions and December 11, tomorrow, for the selection of a jury.

The trial of the Miranti case was reported in detail in all of the metropolitan newspapers in this district. The proceedings were also covered by Associated Press and United Press dispatches.

Nothing has been called to the Court's attention in any of the newspaper reports which was other than fair, accurate and objective. Freedom of the press and the public character of the Miranti trial were achieved without invading the defendants' right to an untrammelled trial by jury. The United States Attorney made every reasonable and proper effort to confine the trial testimony to the three defendants then on trial.

Nevertheless, the evidence unavoidably and, to a certain extent, necessarily made reference to Dio and others of the present defendants.

A statement of Miranti to the FBI (Trial Exhibit 10) and his grand jury testimony (Trial Exhibit 12), implicated Dio by name as having paid certain sums of money in connection with the attack on Victor Riesel. The newspaper publicity attendant upon the trial of the Miranti case contained references to Dio as the alleged mastermind of the acid-throwing attack and as the boss or higher-up in the conspiracy. News concerning the forthcoming trial of Dio and the others was interwoven with the published accounts of the Miranti trial.

Thus, Dio and his co-defendants have purportedly been identified as co-conspirators of the defendants who have just been convicted after a three-week trial.

It must be kept in mind also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Patriarca
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1973
    ...S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); publication of testimony given at a recent trial incriminating the defendants, United States v. Dioguardi, 147 F.Supp. 421 (S.D.N.Y.1956); intensive publication of testimony given at congressional hearings involving an alleged scandal in which the defendan......
  • Sheppard v. Maxwell, 16077.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 14, 1965
    ...v. Hoffa, 156 F.Supp. 495, 499 (S.D.N.Y.1957); United States v. Dioguardi, 20 F.R.D. 33, 36 (S.D.N.Y. 1956); United States v. Dioguardi, 147 F.Supp. 421, 422 (S.D.N.Y.1956). The trial judge in such a situation is in the best position to evaluate the testimony of prospective jurors, and acco......
  • United States v. Bonanno
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 30, 1959
    ...case). It is his duty to take all steps necessary to assure the defendants a fair and unprejudiced trial. See United States v. Dioguardi, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1956, 147 F.Supp. 421 (continuance granted); United States v. Florio, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1952, 13 F.R.D. 296 (change of venue granted). On the oth......
  • United States v. Hoffa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 6, 1957
    ...1952, 199 F.2d 107, 39 A.L.R.2d 1300; Shepherd v. Florida, 1951, 341 U.S. 50, 71 S. Ct. 549, 95 L.Ed. 740; and United States v. Dioguardi, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 147 F. Supp. 421. Since the defendants rely heavily upon the Delaney and Shepherd cases, this Court will discuss them in some In the D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...147 Cal. Rptr. 59, 63 (Ct. App. 1978) (describing freedom of the press as "basic to ... our way of life"); United States v. Dioguardi, 147 F. Supp. 421, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1956) (describing fairness in criminal proceedings as "an attribute of ... our national (106.) Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT