U.S. v. Local 560 (I.B.T.), 91-5440

Decision Date18 August 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-5440,No. 91-5441,91-5441,Nos. 91-5440,91-5440,s. 91-5440
Citation974 F.2d 315
Parties141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001, 122 Lab.Cas. P 10,325, 23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 522, 36 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 507 UNITED STATES of America v. LOCAL 560 (I.B.T.), Nominal Defendant (Intervenor), Appellant in, and Michael Sciarra; Joseph Sheridan, Michael Sciarra, Appellant in
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 315

974 F.2d 315
141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001, 122 Lab.Cas. P 10,325,
23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 522, 36 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 507
UNITED STATES of America
v.
LOCAL 560 (I.B.T.),
Nominal Defendant (Intervenor), Appellant in No. 91-5440,
and
Michael Sciarra; Joseph Sheridan, Michael Sciarra,
Appellant in No. 91-5441.
Nos. 91-5440, 91-5441.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 10, 1992.
Decided Aug. 18, 1992.

Page 320

Michael Chertoff, U.S. Atty., Colette R. Buchanan (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Michael Chagares (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert C. Stewart, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., for appellee.

Samuel J. Buffone (argued), Terrance G. Reed, Asbill, Junkin, Myers & Buffone, Washington, D.C., Michael Critchley, West Orange, N.J., Paul Montalbano, Schneider, Cohen, Solomon, Leder & Montalbano, Cranford, N.J., for appellant in 91-5440, Local 560.

Peter V. Ryan (argued), West Orange, N.J., for appellant in 91-5441, Michael Sciarra.

Albert G. Kroll, Verona, N.J., for amicus curiae, New Jersey State AFL-CIO, in support of appellants.

Before: BECKER, ROTH, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE
                 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................... 322
                 A. The Local 560 Litigation ........................... 322
                 B. Events Leading to Issuance of the Permanent
                 Injunction Against Sciarra ....................... 324
                 C. Summary ............................................ 328
                 II. SCIARRA'S PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS .................................... 328
                 III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ISSUANCE OF THE PERMANENT
                 INJUNCTION ....................................................... 330
                 A. What the Government Must Prove to Obtain
                 Modification of the Injunction ................... 331
                 B. Sufficiency of the Evidence ........................ 333
                 IV. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE IANIELLO/ANDRETTA TAPES AGAINST SCIARRA ....... 337
                 A. Were Sciarra and the Genovese Family Members
                 Co"Conspirators? ................................. 338
                 B. Were the Statements Made During the Course of the
                 Conspiracy? ...................................... 338
                 V. LOCAL 560'S STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE INJUNCTION 339
                 A. Overview of Organizational Standing ................ 339
                 B. Concrete Injury .................................... 340
                 C. Relationship to Organizational Purpose ............. 341
                 INJUNCTION ............ 342
                 A. Introduction ....................................... 342
                 B. Does the Injunction Violate Local 560's Members'
                 Associational Rights? ............................ 342
                 1. Is There a Compelling Governmental
                 Interest? ......................... 343
                 2. Is the Injunction Sufficiently
                 Narrowly Tailored? ................ 344
                 a. Ban on
                 Officeholding ... 344
                 b. Other Restrictions
                 of the
                 Injunction ...... 344
                 VII. LOCAL 560'S OBJECTIONS TO THE INJUNCTION BASED ON LMRDA ............ 346
                 A. Section 411(a)(1) .................................. 346
                 B. Section 411(a)(2) .................................. 346
                VIII. VALIDITY OF THE INJUNCTION UNDER RICO .............................. 347
                 IX. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 348
                

----------

Page 321

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This case arises from the government's ongoing effort to purge Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Local 560," or "the local"), of the influence of organized crime. Through the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961 to 1968 (West, 1984 and 1992 Supp.), the government has, over the past ten years, succeeded in imposing a trusteeship on the local and in obtaining court orders enjoining corrupt individuals from participating in the affairs of Local 560. This appeal concerns the government's efforts to prevent Michael Sciarra, a former Local 560 president and business agent alleged to have links to organized crime, from participating in the union's affairs.

The government presented evidence to the district court that, despite prior injunctions issued against some of Local 560's members, including Sciarra, Sciarra was undeterred in his efforts to retain a role in Local 560 for the Genovese organized crime family. As a result, the district court issued a detailed permanent injunction which enjoined Sciarra from, among other things, holding any position of trust in the local and from attempting to influence the local's affairs. Both Sciarra and Local 560 appeal from the entry of the injunction against him.

Sciarra points out that the government never filed a formal complaint in the district court pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") in seeking this latest injunction, and submits that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue it. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was frustrating the purposes of the original, less restrictive injunction issued against him, and that the district court was therefore not entitled to issue this more drastic injunction. Finally, he contends that tapes of recorded conversations between Genovese Family members, which were considered by the district court in deciding to issue the injunction, were erroneously admitted as co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE").

The government responds that its complaint in this portion of the ongoing Local 560 action was an amendment to the original complaint and that, therefore, no new complaint was necessary to initiate this portion of the litigation. Further, the government points to several pieces of evidence which suggest that Sciarra had corrupt dealings with organized crime after entry of the initial injunction against him and contends that this evidence is sufficient to support the more drastic injunctive relief granted by the district court. Finally, the government submits that the tape-recorded conversations admitted against Sciarra were properly received as co-conspirators' statements under FRE 801(d)(2)(E).

On behalf of its membership, Local 560 objects to the injunction because, it claims, the injunction impermissibly infringes on its members' First Amendment associational

Page 322

rights. The local also urges that the injunction infringes on its members' statutorily protected rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 USCA §§ 401 to 531 (West, 1985 and 1992 Supp), and that section 1964(a) of RICO does not authorize such an injunction. The government concedes that the injunction will infringe on the associational rights of Local 560's membership under the First Amendment and LMRDA, but argues that the injunction is justified because it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.

For the reasons that follow, we reject the claims of Sciarra and the local and will affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Local 560 Litigation

Although the government here seeks an injunction only against Sciarra, a review of the lengthy government-initiated litigation against Local 560 is necessary to understand the issues in the present appeal. 1

In March 1982, the government filed a civil complaint against twelve individuals affiliated with Local 560 who, the government alleged, were involved in facilitating organized crime's control of Local 560. Five of these individuals--Anthony Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano, Steven Andretta, Thomas Andretta, and Gabriel Briguglio--were alleged to be associates of the "Provenzano Group," an organization affiliated with the Genovese organized crime family. The remaining seven defendants--Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano, J.W. Dildine, Thomas Reynolds, Stanley Jaronko, and Michael Sciarra--were the members of the Executive Board of Local 560 at the time. The government claimed that this latter group of individuals had aided and abetted the Provenzano group in using Local 560 for corrupt ends.

In its complaint, the government alleged that all twelve individuals had violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) 2 by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, which included murder, numerous acts of extortion, and labor racketeering. See United States v. Local 560 (IBT), 581 F.Supp. 279, 333-34 (DNJ 1984). The government sought injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964(a) 3 which would prohibit the five members of the Provenzano Group from having any dealings with Local 560 or its membership. Against the remaining seven individuals, the government sought an injunction barring them from acting in any official capacity on behalf of Local 560. The government further sought to impose a trusteeship on Local 560; the trustee would perform all the functions of the former Executive Board until the environment in the union was appropriate for a free election.

In 1984, after a lengthy trial, the district court granted the relief that the government

Page 323

sought. As a result, the members of the Provenzano Group were prohibited from having any dealings with Local 560. Michael Sciarra and the six other members of the Executive Board were prohibited from acting in an official capacity on behalf of Local 560. Additionally, the court imposed a trusteeship "for such time as is necessary to foster the conditions under which reasonably free supervised elections can be held, presumptively for eighteen months." See Local 560, 581 F.Supp. at 337.

The imposition of the trusteeship was stayed until all appeals had been resolved. We affirmed the issuance of that injunction. See Local 560, 780 F.2d at 267. On June 23, 1986, the trusteeship was put in place. Thus, more than two years passed between the district court's order calling for a trusteeship and the actual creation of the trusteeship. During that time, Michael Sciarra succeeded Salvatore Provenzano as the president of Local 560. As we will see, Sciarra's actions during the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Apollo Technologies v. Centrosphere Indus.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 25, 1992
    ... ... It took us only a short time to know that Apollo is the leader in this ... , oversee the Trial Program and train and supervise local personnel. Kukin Aff., ¶ 10 ...         On 29 ... United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 330 (3d Cir.1992) (preliminary ... ...
  • State v. Taccetta
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • May 23, 1997
    ... ... DEFENSE COUNSEL, INFORMED THE JURY THIS WAS A CASE OF "US" AGAINST "THEM" IN WHICH IT WAS "UP TO YOU," EXCEEDED ALL ... United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 338 (3d Cir.1992). A defendant ... ...
  • U.S. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 31, 2002
    ... ... Local 560, 974 F.2d 315, 338 (3d Cir.1992)). 2 ... Page 909 ... ...
  • United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Washington
    • December 4, 2012
    ... ... of the AFLCIO (MTD), and David Molnaa, president of a local Hanford MTD council (together Defendants). These claims ... statutory language much more explicit than that before us here to lead to the conclusion that Congress intended to ... See id.; see also United States v. Local 560 (I.B. T.), 974 F.2d 315, 346 (3rd Cir.1992). Plaintiffs ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...from associating with co-defendants or known members of organized crime for any commercial purposes); United States v. Loc. 560, 974 F.2d 315, 342, 344 (3d Cir. 1992) (banning defendants from holding union off‌ice, participating in union rallies, or inf‌luencing union affairs in any way, an......
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 49 No. 2, March 2012
    • March 22, 2012
    ...defendants from associating with co-defendants or known members of organized crime for commercial purposes); United States v. Local 560, 974 F.2d 315, 342, 344 (3d Cir. 1992) (banning defendants from holding union office, participating in union rallies, or influencing union affairs in any w......
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 51 No. 4, September 2014
    • September 22, 2014
    ...defendants from associating with co-defendants or known members of organized crime for commercial purposes); United States v. Local 560, 974 F.2d 315, 342, 344 (3d Cir. 1992) (banning defendants from holding union office, participating in union rallies, or influencing union affairs in any w......
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 2, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...defendants from associating with co-defendants or known members of organized crime for commercial purposes); United States v. Local 560, 974 F.2d 315,342-44 (3d Cir. 1992) (banning defendants from holding union office, participating in union rallies, or influencing union affairs in any way,......
  • 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