U.S. v. Weisz

Decision Date21 February 1984
Docket NumberNos. 82-2123,82-2154,s. 82-2123
Citation231 U.S. App. D.C. 1,718 F.2d 413
Parties, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 101 UNITED STATES of America v. Stanley WEISZ, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Eugene Robert CIUZIO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Criminal No. 80-00340).

Karl W. Pilger, Washington, D.C. (appointed by the court), and Michael F. Dennis, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants.

Daniel S. Seikaly, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Michael W. Farrell, Stephen R. Spivack and Melanie G. Dorsey, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BORK, Circuit Judge, MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAIRCHILD, * Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge MacKINNON.

MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge:

In this appeal we are asked to review the convictions of Eugene Ciuzio and Stanley Weisz for offenses based upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation's undercover investigation of government corruption commonly known as "Abscam." Ciuzio, Weisz and a third individual, William Rosenberg, arranged a meeting between United States Congressman Richard Kelly and agents of the FBI who were posing as representatives of two wealthy Arabs as part of the Abscam operation. At that meeting Kelly accepted $25,000 from one of the FBI agents and, in return, promised to use his position in Congress to assist the Arabs to become permanent residents of the United States. Unbeknownst to Ciuzio, Weisz and the others, the FBI recorded the entire illicit transaction on video tape.

On the basis of this and other evidence, Ciuzio and Weisz 1 were charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (1976), aiding and abetting bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 (1976), and interstate travel to commit bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952 (1976). Ciuzio, Kelly and Weisz were initially tried together and a jury found each guilty on all counts. However, the district court granted Ciuzio and Weisz a new trial because of "the disparity in the amount of evidence as it related to Kelly on the one hand and ... Weisz and Ciuzio on the other, and in light of ... the manner in which [Kelly's defense] was put forth ...." United States v. Kelly, 539 F.Supp. 363, 377-78 (D.D.C.1982) (footnote omitted). 2 A second jury trial again found Ciuzio and Weisz guilty on all counts.

On appeal, Ciuzio and Weisz contend that the district court erred in admitting certain evidence offered by the government and in denying their motions for judgment of acquittal on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Ciuzio also contends that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself and that the FBI's conduct in furtherance of Abscam was so outrageous that principles of due process required dismissal of the indictment. For the reasons set forth below, we find these contentions to be without merit and affirm the judgments entered by the district court.

I. FACTS
A. The Abscam Investigation

In the spring of 1978, the FBI began an undercover investigation in an attempt to recover stolen art and securities and to catch individuals dealing in such items. 3 The name given to this investigation was "Abscam," a name derived from Abdul Enterprises, a fictitious, FBI-created organization which ostensibly represented two Arabs of considerable wealth interested in financing business ventures in the United States. 4 Convicted confidence man Melvin Weinberg was enlisted by the FBI to assist in the operation of Abscam and to give the investigation credibility with criminal elements. 5 Weinberg and a number of FBI agents "held" various positions in Abdul Enterprises. Beginning in January 1979, FBI special agent Anthony Amoroso assumed the role of president of Abdul Enterprises. 6

In the latter part of 1978 Abdul Enterprises was approached by two businessmen, William Rosenberg and William Eden, concerning the possibility of financing certain equipment to be leased to the City of Camden, New Jersey. To further that transaction, Eden and Rosenberg introduced the representatives of Abdul Enterprises to Angelo Errichetti, then Mayor of Camden. When it became apparent to the Abscam operatives that Errichetti was corrupt, the focus of Abscam shifted to the investigation of political corruption and infiltration of legitimate business by organized crime. 7

On July 26, 1979, Errichetti met with Weinberg and Amoroso on Abdul Enterprises' yacht in Florida. During the day Amoroso told Errichetti that the wealthy Arabs who controlled Abdul Enterprises were concerned that they might encounter problems if they sought to come to the United States as permanent residents, and indicated that the Arabs wanted "assurances" from public officials that they would be able to remain in the United States. Errichetti responded that he could obtain such assurances, "if [Abdul Enterprises] had the money." 8 Thereafter, on August 22, 1979, Errichetti introduced the Abscam operatives to United States Congressman Michael Myers who accepted $50,000 in exchange for his promise to assist the wealthy Arabs. 9 Thus was introduced the "asylum scenario"--whereby several members of Congress were paid bribes to ensure that they would introduce private immigration legislation on behalf of the wealthy Arabs if and when necessary--which ultimately led to the convictions of Ciuzio and Weisz at issue here.

B. Abscam as it Involved Ciuzio and Weisz
1. Abscam's Introduction to Kelly

In the early part of September 1979, Amoroso sought Rosenberg's aid in obtaining political assistance for his Arab employers. Amoroso told Rosenberg that he was interested in meeting congressmen willing to introduce legislation which would give the Arabs permanent resident status and that the congressmen, as well as the individuals recruiting the congressmen, would be paid for their assistance. 10 In October 1979 Rosenberg related the proposal to his business associate, accountant Stanley Weisz. 11 Rosenberg told Weisz that the Arabs were concerned that they might have problems staying in the United States and wanted to meet congressmen who would introduce favorable legislation. Rosenberg suggested that Weisz would receive a fee for the proper introductions. 12 Weisz responded that he did not know any congressmen. 13

On November 20, 1979, Weisz, while on vacation in Boynton Beach, Florida, met with his longtime business associate, Eugene Ciuzio. 14 During their conversation, Weisz related the wealthy Arabs' need to "make friends" with congressmen, explaining that "they were bringing a lot of money to [the United States] for investment" and were worried that "they might have difficulty staying in this country." 15 Ciuzio replied that he was working with a Congressman who might be willing to help the Arabs and indicated that he would check with the Congressman and get back to Weisz. For his part, Weisz agreed to contact Rosenberg and, if the Arabs were still interested, have Rosenberg call Ciuzio. 16 A few days later Ciuzio called Weisz in Boynton Beach and told him that the Congressman was interested in helping the Arabs. 17

In mid-December 1979 Rosenberg stopped by Weisz' office and again mentioned his work for the wealthy Arabs. Weisz informed Rosenberg of Ciuzio's friendship with a Florida Congressman who was willing to help the Arabs with their immigration troubles if they were still interested. 18 Rosenberg checked with Amoroso and Weinberg, and then called Weisz and told him that the Arabs' representatives "were very interested" in meeting the Congressman. Rosenberg indicated to Weisz that the Arabs would pay $250,000 for such an introduction and that he wanted $50,000 of that sum. 19 Weisz gave Rosenberg Ciuzio's telephone number, and agreed to call Ciuzio and ask him to call Weinberg. Weisz called Ciuzio and told him of the Arabs' continued interest in meeting congressmen and of the $250,000 fee, and to expect a call from Weinberg. Ciuzio and Weisz agreed that Weisz, like Rosenberg, would receive $50,000. 20 Meanwhile, Rosenberg called Weinberg and gave him Ciuzio's name and telephone number, explaining that Ciuzio was "the connection to the Congressman" and that Weinberg would have to "deal through" Ciuzio. 21

As a result of these efforts, Amoroso and Weinberg met with Ciuzio on December 19, 1979, in Hollywood, Florida, to discuss the transaction. Amoroso explained the assistance that would be expected of the Congressman:

These [Arabs] are smart enough, they're investing their money all over the world .... They figure at some point in time they're gonna have to ... get outa there .... Now where is the best place to come and live but this country? ... So what they're doin is they're startin' to put themselves in a position so that when ... they come here ... we [can] call the Congressman and say, hey look, the [Arabs are] here [and] ... we want ya to introduce the legislation now to keep em here. 22

Weinberg indicated that the Arabs were willing to pay a total of $250,000, with $100,000 going to the Congressman, for the Congressman's assistance. He suggested that the Congressman be paid $25,000 at an initial meeting, with the balance paid when legislation was required. 23 Weinberg made it clear that the meeting and payment of $25,000 was to assure the Arabs that the Congressman

got the money [and] when we're ready to move that he is gonna be with us. 24

Ciuzio told Amoroso and Weinberg that the individual was Congressman Richard Kelly and intimated that he and Kelly had had previous dealings of a similar nature. 25 Ciuzio indicated that he understood the nature of the proposal, 26 revealing that Weisz had outlined it for him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
135 cases
  • State v. Chung
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 13 d2 Janeiro d2 1987
    ...but are reluctant to put the same thing in writing." United States v. Cooper, 499 F.2d 1060, 1062 (D.C.Cir.1974); United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413, 430 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1027, 104 S.Ct. 1285, 79 L.Ed.2d 688 (1984); State v. Frazier, supra. " '[A] refusal to sign a w......
  • Arthur v. State, CR-91-718
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 8 d5 Março d5 1996
    ...... Don't worry, it won't be traced to us.' [sic]; also, that defendant asked witness if she had access to 'jars' or knockout pills and asked if she knew where defendant could get some ...Trapnell, 638 F.2d 1016, . Page 1046 . 1027 (7th Cir.1980).' United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413, 426, n. 72 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1027, 104 S.Ct. 1285, 79 L.Ed.2d 688 (1984) (emphasis in original)." Ford v. State, ......
  • United States v. Manafort
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 15 d2 Maio d2 2018
    ...a tape recording of a call between the taxpayer and the agency during the taxpayer's trial for bribery); United States v. Weisz , 718 F.2d 413, 435 n.137 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (rejecting defendant's suggestion that failure to comply with FBI regulations can require reversal of a conviction).Desp......
  • U.S. v. Warren
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 25 d4 Outubro d4 1984
    ...and failed to supervise informant); United States v. Silvestri, 719 F.2d 577, 580-82 (2d Cir.1983) (ABSCAM); United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413, 440-41 (D.C.Cir.1983) (ABSCAM); United States v. Garrett, 716 F.2d 257, 274-75 (5th Cir.1983) (agents "entangled" defendant with alleged "underw......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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