United States v. Grasso
Decision Date | 13 May 1976 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. H-75-52. |
Citation | 413 F. Supp. 166 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Sylvio GRASSO. |
Peter Dorsey, U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., Michael Hartmere, Asst. U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., David H. Beitz, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Donald Cardwell, Hartford, Conn., Henry Rothblatt, New York City, Frank Berall, Hartford, Conn., for defendant.
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The issue presented by defendant's motion to dismiss is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment will be violated by the retrial of the defendant, Sylvio J. Grasso, after his original trial ended in a mistrial declared by the trial judge, sua sponte.
The moving papers indicate that on April 16, 1975, the defendant was indicted on three counts of income tax evasion for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Since the government revealed its intention to proceed on a net worth theory of prosecution, the defendant moved for and received broad pretrial discovery. Trial commenced on November 4, 1975, before the Honorable T. Emmet Clarie, Chief Judge, and a jury duly empanelled and sworn. During the next eight trial days, the government called over 40 witnesses to testify on its case-in-chief; the defendant presented ten witnesses, including himself; the government called three witnesses in rebuttal; and, over 300 documents were admitted as exhibits. In addition, the parties filed extensive requests for jury instructions. On November 26, 1975, as the government was preparing to call its final rebuttal witnesses, Judge Clarie aborted the trial on his own motion after a two-day hearing.
The circumstances leading to the mistrial were as follows. During the course of the government's direct case, one Daniel Harris was called to testify. Harris had multiple felony convictions in his background and was presently serving a term of imprisonment of 8-30 years imposed in 1971 for the sale of heroin. However, he had had favorable consideration from the Board of Parole and was due to be released from prison in December, 1975. Harris testified at length that he and the defendant had engaged in numerous transactions involving the purchase and sale of heroin in the year 1970. The obvious purpose of this evidence was to establish an illegal source for the defendant's alleged unreported income in the calendar year 1970. Harris' testimony extended over a period of a day and a half and consumed over 120 pages of transcript.
Several days after he testified, Harris contacted Henry Rothblatt, the defendant's attorney, and requested an interview at the local jail. Rothblatt visited Harris and recorded a full recantation of Harris' trial testimony. Among other things, Harris stated that his false testimony was influenced by coercion and threats made by government prosecutors and the agents in charge of the tax case. He asserted that when he informed these officials prior to trial that he did not wish to appear, they responded that unless he changed his mind his parole would be revoked, he would have to serve the full 30 years of his sentence, and he would also be indicted on a perjury charge because of his grand jury appearance in the instant case. As a consequence, he claimed he was forced to testify falsely against the defendant.
Rothblatt immediately relayed Harris' disclosures to Judge Clarie and filed a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, citing as authority Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); and Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). Hearings were held on November 21 and 25, at which ten witnesses were heard outside the presence of the jury. However, Harris refused to testify, relying on the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment.
On November 26, Judge Clarie ruled in relevant part as follows.
As soon as the judgment of the court was announced, Assistant United State's Attorney Hartmere responded:
Your Honor, for the record, the Government strongly opposes the Court's ruling. (Id., at 14).
In addition, Attorney Rothblatt took exception to the court's decision and unsuccessfully attempted to renew his request for a judgment of acquittal.
In discharging the jury, Judge Clarie further amplified his reasons for declaring a mistrial:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Grasso
...Robert C. Zampano, Judge, granting the appellee's motion to dismiss his indictment for tax evasion on double jeopardy grounds. 413 F.Supp. 166 (D.Conn.1976). We On April 16, 1975, appellee was indicted on three counts of income tax evasion for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, pursuant to 26 U......
-
Whitley v. Ercole
...second [ Lee ] consideration ... does not indicate that application of § 470.05(2) was exorbitant.”); see also United States v. Grasso, 413 F.Supp. 166, 171 (D.Conn.1976) (“Recantation of a witness' testimony at trial is not a rare occurrence.”) (collecting authorities). Accordingly, we are......
-
U.S. v. Grasso
...of Mr. Justice Story, the trial judge exercised "sound discretion" in declaring a mistrial.434 U.S. at 514, 98 S.Ct. at 835.7 413 F.Supp. 166, 171 (D.Conn. 1976).8 On November 26, Judge Clarie ruled in relevant part as follows:The Court: The Court has, as counsel may well imagine, given con......
-
U.S. v. Grasso, 989
...defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds of double jeopardy, the motion was granted, and the indictment dismissed. 413 F.Supp. 166 (D.Conn.1976). The government appealed and this Court affirmed. 552 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1977). An en banc rehearing petition was denied. 568 F.2d 899 (......