U.S. v. Murphy, s. 1577

Decision Date26 August 1980
Docket Number1587,Nos. 1577,D,s. 1577
Citation642 F.2d 699
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John M. MURPHY, Frank Thompson, Jr., Appellants. ockets 80-1299, 80-1307.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Michael E. Tigar, Washington, D. C. (Samuel J. Buffone, John J. Privitera, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant Murphy.

Daniel A. Rezneck, Washington, D. C. (Clifford D. Stromberg, Robert N. Weiner, Arnold & Porter, Washington, D. C., Stephen E. Kaufman, New York City, on the brief), for appellant Thompson.

Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellee.

Before NEWMAN and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Congressmen John M. Murphy and Frank Thompson, Jr. appeal, prior to trial, from a ruling of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Jacob Mishler, Judge) denying their motion to dismiss an indictment charging various offenses related to solicitation and acceptance of bribes. This is another of the so-called Abscam indictments, only recently considered by this Court in United States v. Myers, 635 F.2d 932 (2d Cir. 1980).

The five-count indictment names as defendants the two appellants, Howard Criden, a Philadelphia attorney, and Joseph Silvestri, who is not otherwise identified in the indictment. Count One charges all four defendants with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1976) by conspiring to defraud the United States and to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 201 and 203 concerning bribery of public officials. Count Two charges Murphy and Thompson, aided and abetted by Criden, with violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c) and 2 (aiding and abetting). Count Three charges Murphy and Thompson, aided and abetted by Criden, with violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203(a) and 2. Count Four charges Criden, aided and abetted by Murphy and Thompson with violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 (interstate travel to carry out bribery) and 2. Count Five charges Murphy, aided and abetted by Thompson and Criden, with violation of §§ 201(g) and 2. As in Myers, the facts alleged in support of these charges arise out of an elaborate undercover "sting" operation, in which F.B.I. agents and a private citizen, posing as representatives of wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen, offered substantial sums of cash to each of the appellants, and the appellants accepted the cash in return for promises to take official action in behalf of the fictitious businessmen with regard to immigration and other governmental matters.

The appellants contend that the indictment is based on actions protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S.Const. Art. I, § 6, that the indictment will require the appellants to present information protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in their defense, that the grand jury that returned the indictment heard evidence protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, and that the District Court inadequately considered the motion to dismiss by failing to review transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.

Each of these contentions is available for pre-trial appellate review, Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979); United States v. Myers, supra. On the merits, each claim is rejected, on the authority of Myers, which considered identical contentions arising in circumstances not different in any material respect. The essence of all the allegations against the Congressmen is the acceptance of bribes in return for corrupt...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Chavez v. Board of Educ. of Tularosa, CIV. 05-0380 JB/RLP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • November 17, 2008
    .......         Let us explain our concerns. Matthew displays many behaviors which are a component of his diagnosis. He is ......
  • X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 10, 1997
    ...the allegations against him might implicate his legislative activity does not require dismissal of the complaint. In United States v. Murphy, 642 F.2d 699, 700 (2d Cir.1980), congressmen who were indicted for taking bribes in the Abscam sting operation appealed the district court's denial o......
  • U.S. v. Myers, s. 904
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 3, 1982
    ...on charges of bribery arising out of an undercover "sting" operation now well known to the nation as Abscam. See also United States v. Murphy, 642 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1980). The Myers ruling, made in advance of trial, was based on the face of the indictment that had been returned. Now before ......
  • People v. Ohrenstein
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 21, 1989
    ...1065, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081, 102 S.Ct. 636, 70 L.Ed.2d 615; United States v. Myers, supra, 635 F.2d at 937; cf. United States v. Murphy, 2nd Cir., 642 F.2d 699, 700 [holding that the District Court did not err by refusing to review grand jury minutes on a motion to dismiss on Speech o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Breaking the law to enforce it: undercover police participation in crime.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 1, December 2009
    • December 1, 2009
    ...F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished disposition). (38.) United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982); United States v. Murphy, 642 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Myers, 635 F.2d 932 (2d Cir. (39.) United States v. Parisi, 674 F.2d 126 (1st Cir. 1982). (40.) MARX, POLICE......

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