663 F.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1981), 80-1728, United States v. Cortellesso

Docket Nº:80-1728, 80-1729.
Citation:663 F.2d 361
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Albert A. CORTELLESSO, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ralph ALTIERI, Defendant, Appellant.
Case Date:November 09, 1981
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Page 361

663 F.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1981)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


Albert A. CORTELLESSO, Defendant, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


Ralph ALTIERI, Defendant, Appellant.

Nos. 80-1728, 80-1729.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

November 9, 1981

Argued Sept. 10, 1981.

Page 362

John Tramonti, Jr., Providence, R.I., for appellants.

Robert J. Erickson, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Paul F. Murray, U. S. Atty. and Edwin J. Gale, Sp. Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Providence, R. I., were on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.

ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.

After remand, following our decision in United States v. Cortellesso, 1 Cir., 1979, 601 F.2d 28, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1072, 100 S.Ct. 1016, 62 L.Ed.2d 753, reversing the district court's order that suppressed the fruits of allegedly illegal searches, defendants Cortellesso, and Altieri, his son-in-law, were jointly convicted of conspiracy to receive, transport, possess, and conceal stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count I), and of receiving and concealing stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2315 (Count III), and defendant Cortellesso, alone, was convicted of possessing stolen goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659 (Count II), and of removing evidence to prevent its seizure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232 (Count IV). The property consisted principally of men's luxury clothing, Cortellesso being the proprietor of a men's clothing store in Providence, Rhode Island. Cortellesso received concurrent seven-year sentences on Counts II and III, to be served, and a consecutive sentence of one year, suspended, on Count IV, and was fined $10,000 on Count I and $5,000 on Count II. Altieri received a one-year suspended sentence.

Both defendants appeal. Cortellesso contends he was unconstitutionally denied counsel of his choice. 1 Altieri claims the evidence against him was insufficient to convict. Both argue that certain tape recordings were improperly admitted. Finding these contentions without merit, we affirm.


The basis for Count IV was that, following one of the searches and discovery of a large amount of allegedly stolen clothing in defendant Cortellesso's cellar, his attorney, a Mr. Jackvony, alleged orally agreed that defendant would not remove the clothing, and that it would remain there until the government arranged for proper storage that would protect it from injury. When the government agents returned two days later, the clothing was gone. Defendants' brief thrice flatly states, we can only think meretriciously, that Jackvony did make this agreement-including a statement that the government's "case closed with a stipulation that former defense counsel (Jackvony), a Government Attorney, and (F.B.I.) Agent Kennedy had all agreed that the goods would remain in the basement...." However, this is strikingly untrue. The only stipulation (which was read to the jury in lieu of his taking the stand) was to the effect that, if called to testify, Jackvony would testify to having...

To continue reading