In re Lazarus

• Decision Date: 30 August 1967
• Docket Number: Misc. No. 1598(a).
• Citation: 276 F. Supp. 434
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: In re Ruby LAZARUS.

276 F. Supp. 434

In re Ruby LAZARUS.

Misc. No. 1598(a).

United States District Court Central District California.

August 30, 1967.

John K. Van de Kamp, United States Atty., Richard M. Coleman, Asst. United States Atty. and Chief of the Special Prosecutions Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for the United States.

Thomas F. Call, Los Angeles, for Ruby Lazarus.

ORDERS GRANTING IMMUNITY, COMPELLING TESTIMONY BEFORE GRAND JURY, FINDING CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE, AND COMMITTING TO CUSTODY

HAUK, District Judge.

This proceeding is a companion case to In re Loughran and Kikumura, Misc. No. 1598-AAH.¹ It arises out of the same investigation of alleged violations of the Federal Statutes prohibiting the Interstate Transmission of Wagering Information;² Interstate Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence (Racketeering and Extortion);³ Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises;⁴ Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia;⁵ Attempt to Evade or Defeat Occupational Tax (Wagering);⁶ Violations of the Federal Communications Act;⁷ and other violations of the laws of the United States, conducted by the Central District Grand Jury impaneled September 22, 1966, Philip T. Wilson, Foreman.⁸

Now, a little more than two months after the proceedings against Miss Loughran and Miss Kikumura, the Grand Jury is still probing the "Little Apalachin" meeting of big name gamblers and underworld figures held in October 1965 at the Palm Springs-residence of these two Las Vegas showgirls.⁹

More specifically, witness Ruby Lazarus, a Miami Beach and New York City bookmaker, was interrogated extensively about Vincent (Jimmy Blue Eyes) Alo and Anthony (Fat Tony) Salerno, New York members of the Cosa Nostra "Family" headed by Vito Genovese, as well as Jerome (Jerry) Zarowitz, credit manager of Caesars Palace on the Las Vegas "Strip" and Elliott Paul Price, a host at the same club, all reported by the press to have been in attendance.¹⁰

INITIAL COURT HEARING: ORDER CONFIRMING IMMUNITY AND COMPELLING TESTIMONY.

In response to subpoena, Ruby Lazarus appeared before the Grand Jury on March 9, 1967, but refused to answer any questions, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Thereupon, the United States Attorney came before this Court with the Grand Jury and the witness Lazarus and filed the following "APPLICATION FOR IMMUNITY":¹¹

"The United States of America moves this Honorable Court for an order instructing Ruby Lazarus to testify and produce evidence pursuant to the provisions of Title 47, United States Code, Section 409(1), and respectfully alleges as follows:

"1. On December 13, 1966, a duly constituted grand jury began an inquiry into alleged violations of the Federal statutes prohibiting the Interstate Transmission of Wagering Information, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084; Interstate Transportation in Aid of Racketeering, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952; Interstate Transmission of Wagering Paraphernalia, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1953; Attempt to Evade Occupational Tax (Wagering), Title 26, United States Code, Sections 4411, 4412, 7201; and violations of the Federal Communications Act, Title 47, United States Code, Sections 203 and 501, and other violations of the laws of the United States.

"2. Ruby Lazarus was subpoenaed to appear and did appear before the grand jury on March 9, 1967.

"3. In response to numerous questions related to activities falling within the scope of the above statutes, respondent invoked the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer.

"4. This application for immunity is being made in good faith, with the approval of the Attorney General, in the belief that the witness can give important testimony which will be pertinent to the grand jury inquiry.

"WHEREFORE, the United States of America requests the Court to ORDER Ruby Lazarus to answer the questions which he has heretofore refused to answer, and to testify and produce evidence relating to all matters pertinent to the pending grand jury inquiry, pursuant to the provisions of Title 47, United States Code, Section 409(1)."¹²

Upon motion of the United States Attorney and pursuant to provisions of Rule 6(e) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,¹³ the Court directed the Grand Jury's certified shorthand reporter to take the stand and disclose the interrogation of the witness Lazarus in the transcript:¹⁴

"`BY MR. COLEMAN:

"`Q Would you please state your full name, sir?

"`A Ruby Lazarus.'

"MR. COLEMAN: Excuse me, was the witness sworn?

"A Yes, he was. He spells his name, L-a-z-a-r-u-s.

"Q Would you speak a little louder?

"A He respelled his name L-a-z-a-r-u-s. (Whereupon witness reads as follows:)

"`Q And your address, sir?

"`A 47—214 First Street, Long Island, New York City.

"`Q Are you the same Ruby Lazarus who appeared before this Grand Jury late in 1966, in December?

"`A I am.

"`Q Did you appear here that day, Mr. Lazarus, as a result of the subpoena?

"`A I did.

"`Q At that time, Mr. Lazarus, there was an arrangement made, was there not, to call you under subpoena so that you would return and appear before this Grand Jury upon at least two day's notification?

"`A That is why I am here today.

"`Q Sir, that notification was to be given you through your counsel at that time, a Mr. Rosen of Miami; was it not?

"`A That is right.

"`Q Sir, that notification was in fact given to you last week through Mr. Rosen for your appearance here today; was it not?

"`A Yes, that is right.'

"THE COURT: What was that date again?

"THE WITNESS: Last week through Mr. Rosen. (Whereupon witness continues reading:)

"`A Yes, that is right.

"`Q Are you represented today here in Los Angeles by counsel?

"`A No, I am not.

"`Q Mr. Lazarus, let me put on the record of this Grand Jury what we have discussed outside this Grand Jury. I informed you, sir, that last week I spoke with Mr. Rosen on the telephone concerning your appearance before this Grand Jury today. At that time Mr. Rosen asked if it would be possible to postpone your appearance before this Grand Jury for a period of at least two to three weeks due to the fact that Mr. Rosen had a commitment in the trial of a case in Miami, Florida.

"`I explained to Mr. Rosen that while it was the policy of this Grand Jury to accommodate attorneys or witnesses when it was possible, that in this instance it would not be possible due to the schedule of the Grand Jury. That the Grand Jury was already in process, and due to the fact that this Grand Jury just recently received an extension from the court of its time to consider cases for an additional 60 days, approximately.

"`When I explained that to Mr. Rosen, it was my understanding that arrangements would be made that you would obtain local counsel here. Mr. Rosen was also informed that it was a reasonable assumption that the question of application for immunity as a witness for yourself might be involved in your appearance this week.

"`You and I have discussed what I have just related prior to your appearance in this room; have we not, sir?

"`A I understand that Mr. Rosen called you and spoke about a postponement. What the topic of your conversation was, I do not—

"`Q Pardon me?

"`A I say other than that, I do not know.

"`Q Mr. Lazarus, have your made arrangements to obtain local counsel?

"`A No, I have not.

"`Q Mr. Lazarus, I wish to inform you that the purpose of this Grand Jury is to investigate possible violation of the laws of the United States. Among the laws that possibly have been violated that this Grand Jury is investigating are Sections 1084, 1952, 1953 of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1084 relates to the transmission of wagering by phone or telegraph. Section 1952 makes it a crime to use the telephone as an aid of racketeering. Among other laws with which the Grand Jury is concerned are Sections 203 and 501 of Title 47, United States Code, which deals with violations of the Federal Communications Act.

"`Do you understand what I have said to you up to this point?

"`A Yes, I do.

"`Q Mr. Lazarus, you have been called as a witness. This Grand Jury believes you have information that can help this Grand Jury in its investigation. Do you understand, sir, your right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which gives you the right not to answer any question, the truthful answer of which might tend to incriminate you personally of a crime? Do you understand your rights, sir?

"`A I do.

"`Q Under the Fifth Amendment?

"`A I do.

"`Q I wish to inform you also that one of the statutes with which this Grand Jury is concerned as was mentioned earlier is the Federal Communications Act. That Act has provisions whereby if you assert the Fifth Amendment rather than answering questions, this Grand Jury might seek the help of the court to order you to answer questions. That order of the court, Mr. Lazarus, would in effect operate to grant you immunity by which—I mean that you cannot be prosecuted for anything about which you answer in response to questions propounded before this Grand Jury.

"`Do you understand that, sir?

"`A Yes, I do.

"`Q Do you understand also, sir, that should this immunity be conferred upon you, it would not extend to perjury. That is when you answer after having been ordered by the court, you must answer truthfully or be subject to the penalties for perjury.

"`Do you understand that, sir?

"`A Yes, I do.

"`Q Finally, I should inform you, sir, that if you do assert the Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer any questions propounded to you, it is the intention of the Grand Jury to seek the assistance of the court to order you to answer.

"`Do you understand, sir?

"`A Yes, I do.

"`Q Mr. Lazarus, do you know Vincent Alo?

"`A I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

"`Q Do you...