4 F.3d 173 (2nd Cir. 1993), 1575, United States v. Grisanti

Docket Nº:1575, Docket 93-1102.
Citation:4 F.3d 173
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Frank GRISANTI, also known as Chickie Botts, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:September 03, 1993
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 173

4 F.3d 173 (2nd Cir. 1993)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,

v.

Frank GRISANTI, also known as Chickie Botts, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1575, Docket 93-1102.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

September 3, 1993

Submitted June 8, 1993.

Page 174

Dennis C. Vacco, Buffalo, NY, U.S. Atty., and Anthony M. Bruce, Asst. U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., for appellant.

John Patrick Pieri, Buffalo, NY, Stiller & Pieri, for defendant-appellee.

Before: OAKES, WALKER and WOOD, Jr., [*] Circuit Judges.

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge:

The United States appeals the district court's dismissal of two counts of a five-count indictment charging defendant with criminal contempt and witness tampering. For the reasons given below, we reverse.

I.

Frank Grisanti was charged in two indictments filed on October 3, 1991, with several counts of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and illegal racketeering. He was arraigned on October 10, 1991, and released on a $10,000 signature bond subject to various conditions of release. Grisanti was not to have any contact with potential witnesses. A witness was defined as any person whose name appeared in either indictment. Any contact was to be reported to the pretrial services division of the probation office within twenty-four hours.

On November 5, 1991, the government filed a motion to revoke Grisanti's pretrial release on the ground that Grisanti had contacted a witness named in the indictments and failed to promptly report it. After a hearing held on the motion, the magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that Grisanti knowingly and intentionally violated the court's order in several instances by meeting with a witness, discussing that witness's future testimony, and failing to report the meetings. The magistrate found the requirements for revocation of release were met because there was clear and convincing evidence that Grisanti had violated several conditions of his release as well as probable cause that Grisanti had violated federal laws against witness tampering and making false statements to a government agency. The magistrate found there were no conditions of release which could assure Grisanti's presence or prevent his potential danger to others. Grisanti, therefore, was remanded to custody on November 13, 1991. 1 The magistrate's order was affirmed by the district court.

A grand jury charged Grisanti in an indictment filed June 4, 1992...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP