454 F.2d 711 (10th Cir. 1972), 71-1325, United States v. DeLuzio
|Citation:||454 F.2d 711|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Anthony DeLUZIO, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||January 18, 1972|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
Rehearing Denied March 13, 1972.
Stephen E. Connor, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant.
W. Allen Spurgeon, Asst. U. S. Atty. (James L. Treece, U. S. Atty., and Milton C. Branch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HILL, SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
HILL, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on April 7, 1971, for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, obstructing justice.
A federal grand jury was impaneled in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on or about October 6, 1970. On February 1 and 2, 1971, this grand jury was investigating possible violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 892-894, making, financing and collecting extortionate extensions of credit. A Mr. Anthony W. Durbano was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Based on Durbano's testimony, Mr. DeLuzio was indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1503. Durbano testified at the trial that he had secured certain loans from a Mr. Chauncy Smaldone to pay gambling debts, and that he paid interest at the rate of $5.00 per hundred per week. DeLuzio allegedly directed Durbano to tell the grand jury nothing about loans, but that he had borrowed the money from the cash register at Gaetano's Restaurant, Durbano's place of employment, and had paid no interest thereon. A jury verdict of guilty was returned based on Durbano's testimony.
Appellant presents three arguments for reversal of the conviction. He argues denial of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial because of the prejudicial effect of pretrial publicity. Articles appeared in the Denver newspapers concerning the charge in the instant case, as well as various gambling activities and burglaries with which appellant had been charged. DeLuzio's motion for a continuance predicated upon pretrial publicity was denied by the trial court. Secondly, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Thirdly, appellant urges that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of non-related crimes allegedly committed by DeLuzio.
We find appellant's contention that it was error to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP