91 F.Supp.2d 141 (D.Mass. 1999), CR. 94-10287, United States v. Salemme

Docket Nº:Cr. 94-10287-MLW, CR. 97-10009-MLW.
Citation:91 F.Supp.2d 141
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America v. Francis P. SALEMME, et al. United States of America v. John Martorano
Case Date:September 15, 1999
Court:United States District Courts, 1st Circuit, District of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 141

91 F.Supp.2d 141 (D.Mass. 1999)

UNITED STATES of America

v.

Francis P. SALEMME, et al.

United States of America

v.

John Martorano

Nos. Cr. 94-10287-MLW, CR. 97-10009-MLW.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Sept. 15, 1999.

Clerical Corrections, December 23, 1999.

Page 142

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 143

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 144

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 145

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 146

Fred M. Wyshak, Jr., Brian T. Kelly, U.S. Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, James D. Herbert, U.S. Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for U.S.

MaryEllen Kellejer, Law Office of Richard Egbert, Boston, MA, Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, John Mitchell, Law Office of John Mitchell, New York City, for Francis P. Salemme, Sr.

Martin G. Weinberg, Oteri, Weinberg & Lawson, Boston, MA, Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, Francis J. DiMento, DiMento & Sullivan, Boston, MA, for John V. MartoraNo.

Randolph Gioia, Boston, MA, for Robert P. DeLuca

Kenneth J. Fishman, Fishman, Ankner & Horstman, LLP, Boston, MA, Kimberly Homan, Sheketoff & Homan, Boston, MA, for Stephen J. Flemmi.

A. Hugh Scott, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, MA, for James A. Ring.

Jonathan M. Albano, Thomas J. Hennessey, Bingham, Dana & Gould, Boston, MA, for Globe Newspaper Co., Shelley Murphy, Kevin Cullen.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, District Judge.

Page 147

I. SUMMARY .............................................................. 148
1. The Facts Concerning Defendant Stephen Flemmi's Motion to Dismiss Based on Immunity .................................... 148
2. The Motion to Dismiss Based on Immunity ........................ 163
3. Flemmi's Motion to Suppress the 1984"85 Electronic Surveillance 166
4. DeLuca's Motion to Suppress Concerning the LCN Induction Ceremony..................................................... 170
5. Conclusion of Summary .......................................... 172
II. FINDINGS OF FACT ..................................................... 175
1. The Standards Applied .......................................... 175
2. Rico and Flemmi ................................................ 176
3. Flemmi as a Fugitive ........................................... 183
4. The Development of Bulger as an Informant ...................... 185
5. The FBI Forges the Flemmi" Bulger Partnership ................... 186
6. Attorney General Levi's Memorandum on FBI Informants ........... 188
7. Bulger and Flemmi Begin to Perform as a Team ................... 197
8. Morris Becomes Chief of the Organized Crime Squad .............. 198
9. The Race" Fix Case .............................................. 199
10. The FBI Does Not Investigate Bulger or Flemmi .................. 201
11. The Lancaster Street Garage and 98 Prince Street ............... 202
12. Sarhatt Extends Bulger and Flemmi As Informants ................ 207
13. The Wheeler, Halloran, and Callahan Murders .................... 208
14. The FBI Identified Other Informants for Flemmi and Bulger ...... 213
15. The South Boston Liquor Mart ................................... 215
16. Greenleaf Becomes SAC and Ring Becomes Supervisor of the Organized Crime Squad ........................................ 216
17. The 1984"85 Electronic Surveillance ............................ 220
18. Morris Tells Bulger and Flemmi That They Can Do Anything They Want as Long as They Do Not "Clip" Anyone .................... 242
19. Dining with "Donnie Brasco" .................................... 244
20. Vanessa's ...................................................... 244
21 Flemmi Becomes A Top Echelon Informant Again ................... 248
22. Raymond Slinger ................................................ 250
23. Bulger and Flemmi Are Protected From Investigation In the Hobart Willis Case .................................................. 254
24. The Guard Rails at the South Boston Liquor Mart ................ 255
25. Joseph Murray .................................................. 256
26. John Bahorian .................................................. 258
27. The Leak and the Threat to The Boston Globe .................... 259
28. Flemmi and Salemme ............................................. 262
29. Mercurio as an Informant ....................................... 263
30. The LCN Induction Ceremony ..................................... 269
31. Mercurio as a Fugitive ......................................... 289
32. The Investigation of Flemmi and Bulger ......................... 293
33. The Indictment of Bulger and Flemmi and Its Aftermath .......... 301
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................... 315
1. Flemmi's Motion to Dismiss or Suppress Based on Immunity ....... 315
A. The Court is Now Considering Only the Issue of Immunity ... 315
B. The Applicable Standards Concerning Immunity .............. 317
C. Dismissal of This Case Is Not Now Justified Because Flemmi Was Not Promised Immunity From Prosecution .............. 321
D. The Issues of Use and Derivative Use Immunity ............. 325
(1) Flemmi Does Not Have An Agreement Providing Use Immunity Generally For His Statements to the FBI .... 326
(2) The Promise of Confidentiality Means Statements to the FBI Which Have the Effect of Identifying Flemmi as an Informant Cannot Be Used Against Him Unless His Defense Makes Them an Issue ......................... 326
(3) Flemmi Had an Enforceable Agreement Relating to 98 Prince Street, Vanessa's, and 34 Guild Street ....... 329
(4) A Hearing Will Be Necessary to Determine If This Case Must Be Dismissed and, If Not, Whether Any Evidence Must be Excluded at Trial ........................... 341
(5) If Morris and Connolly Were Not Authorized to Promise Flemmi that the Evidence Intercepted at 98 Prince Street, Vanessa's, and 34 Guild Street Would Not Be Used Against Him, Flemmi's Statements to the FBI Relating to Those Interceptions May Have Been Involuntary and, In Addition, Use of Any Evidence Intercepted At Those Locations May Violate Flemmi's Right to Due Process ................................ 346
2. The Motion to Suppress the 1984"85 Electronic Surveillance ..... 351
A. Summary ................................................... 351
B. Suppression is Not Justified Based on the Alleged Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2616(1).................................. 353
C. The Standards to be Applied in Deciding Whether to Suppress for a Failure to Satisfy the Requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1) (c)Concerning the Necessity for Electronic Surveillance ............................................ 358
D. The Necessity Provision of Title III, § 2518(1) (c), is Constitutional in Origin ................................ 364
E. The Motion to Suppress the 1984"85 Surveillance is Meritorious ............................................. 369
F. A Hearing is Necessary to Identify the Evidence Which Must be Suppressed Because of the Government's Unlawful Conduct Concerning the 1984"85 Electronic Surveillance and to Determine if Any Other Remedy is Required ........ 380
3. Flemmi is Not an "Aggrieved Person" With Standing to Seek Suppression of the Interceptions at Vanessa's Under Title III 381
4. DeLuca Does Not Have Standing to Move to Suppress the Evidence Intercepted at 34 Guild Street For a Violation of Title III Because the 1998 Supreme Court Decision in Minnesota v. Carter Indicates That Although His Conversation was Intercepted, It Did Not Constitute an "Oral Communication" As Defined in the Statute, and DeLuca's Fourth Amendment Rights Were Not Violated ..................................................... 384
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................... 400
V. ORDER ................................................................ 401
Page 148 In 1861, Lord Acton wrote that, "[e]very thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice." John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, Lord Acton and His Circle 166 (Abbot Gasquet, ed., 1968). This case demonstrates that he was right. I. SUMMARY 1. The Facts Concerning Defendant Stephen Flemmi's Motion to Dismiss Based on Immunity On January 5, 1995, defendant Stephen Flemmi was arrested on a criminal complaint which charged him, James "Whitey" Bulger, and George Kaufman with conspiring to extort money from a bookmaker, Burton Krantz. Five days later, on January 10, 1995, Flemmi, Bulger, Kaufman, and four other defendants were indicted on...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP