In re Loughran
| Decision Date | 30 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 1598. |
| Citation | 276 F. Supp. 393 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | In re Natalie LOUGHRAN, also known as Vickie Lockwood and Carolyn Kikumura, also known as Carol Kimura. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John K. Van de Kamp, United States Atty., Richard M. Coleman, Asst. United States Atty. and Chief of Sp. Prosecutions Div., Stephen D. Miller, Asst. United States Atty. and Assistant Chief of Sp. Prosecutions Div., and Gerald F. Uelman, Asst. United States Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for the United States.
Daniel N. Busby and Thomas F. Call, Los Angeles, Cal., for Natalie Loughran, also known as Vickie Lockwood.
Thomas F. Call, Los Angeles, Cal., for Carolyn Kikumura, also known as Carol Kimura.
ORDERS GRANTING IMMUNITY AND COMPELLING TESTIMONY BEFORE GRAND JURY
These proceedings arise out of the investigation of interstate racketeering, wagering, gambling and related activities in southern California, Nevada, Florida and the East Coast being conducted by the Central District Grand Jury, Philip T. Wilson, Foreman,1 with its inquiry focused upon 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.
At the time of these proceedings the Grand Jury had begun to zero in specifically upon a meeting of big-name gamblers and underworld figures reportedly held in October 1965 at the Palm Springs residence of two Las Vegas showgirls, the Grand Jury witnesses who are here now before the Court: Natalie Loughran (who uses the stage name of Vickie Lockwood) and Carolyn Kikumura, who is also known as Carol Kimura.
Two alleged participants in the meeting were Vincent (Jimmy Blue Eyes) Alo, and Anthony (Fat Tony) Salerno, reputed New York members of the Cosa Nostra "family" headed by Vito Genovese. Perhaps because Genovese was a top delegate to the infamous convention of sixty crime chieftains November 14, 1957 at Apalachin, New York,8 this Palm Springs meeting was quickly dubbed "Little Apalachin" by the press.9
Others who reportedly attended the Palm Springs gathering, which apparently lasted for several days, were Jerome (Jerry) Zarowitz, credit manager of Caesar's Palace on the Las Vegas "Strip", Elliott Paul Price, a host at Caesar's Palace, and Ruby (Fat Ruby) Lazarus, prominent Miami Beach and New York City bookmaker.10
In response to subpoenas, the two showgirls appeared on December 15, 1967 before the "Wilson" Grand Jury in the United States Court House, Los Angeles, and each of them was questioned separately. Prior to questioning, of course, each was sworn, asked her correct name and stage name and, after admitting she had had an opportunity to consult with counsel, was advised that the purpose of the Grand Jury was to investigate violations of the laws of the United States and particularly those dealing with interstate racketeering, wagering, gambling and related activities. The statutes hereinabove referred to and cited at Footnote 1 were specifically mentioned.11 Then each witness was informed that she was not before the Grand Jury as a prospective defendant but rather as a witness with information that could aid in the investigation. Each admitted that her attorney had explained her constitutional rights to her, including her right under the Fifth Amendment to answer any questions, the truthful answer to which might tend to incriminate her personally of a crime.12
Each witness was advised that one of the statutes with which the Grand Jury was concerned related to the Federal Communications Act which contains provisions whereby, if she should assert the Fifth Amendment rather than answer the questions, the Grand Jury might seek the help of the Court to order her to answer the questions. Moreover, each witness was told that any such order would operate to grant her immunity so that she could not be prosecuted for anything she might answer in response to the questions propounded by the Grand Jury, with the cautionary admonition, however, that this immunity would not extend to perjury.13
Finally, each witness was warned that it was the Grand Jury's determination to ask the Court to confirm the immunity and compel her to answer, should she assert the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer.14
After these preliminaries, each witness was asked the following questions and invoked the Fifth Amendment in reply:15
In addition to those same questions asked of Miss Kikumura, Miss Loughran was asked two further questions:16
Immediately after this interrogation, the Assistant United States Attorney brought the Grand Jury and the witnesses Kikumura and Loughran before the Court and filed the following "APPLICATION FOR IMMUNITY":17
After ascertaining that both witnesses were represented by counsel, Miss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Johnson
... ... 72 (1961). 7 Nor can fear of harm to the witness generally be offered as an excuse for declining testimony. Relief of witnesses on this ground would encourage intimidation of those in possession of information and proclaim a sorry confession of weakness of the rule of law. See In re Loughran, 276 F.Supp. 393 (C.D.Cal.1967) ... On two narrowly defined, exceptional occasions, risk to a person's safety may furnish reason for a court's refusal to elicit information, but the exceptions and their treatment by the courts serve to show the strength of the basic right to ... ...
-
In re Agosto
... ... Movant next asserts that he is entitled as an individual to have the subpoena quashed if he will suffer mental or physical damage as a result of the coerced testimony. Movant cites In re Loughran, 276 F.Supp. 393 (C.D.Ca.1976) to support this position. Furthermore, Movant cites a decision of this Court, in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Witnesses: Robert Stella, et al., CV-LV-82-71, HEC (D.Nev., May 5, 1982). At the evidentiary hearing incident to the instant motion, Movant elicited ... ...
-
United States v. Zarowitz
... ... In re Loughran, 276 F.Supp. 393, 396 n. 8 (C.D.Cal. 1967); In re Lazarus, 276 F.Supp. 434, 436 n. 9 (C.D.Cal.1967) ... 5. Moreover the affidavits also set forth other allegations which are indeed 326 F. Supp. 92 actually true as this Judge is well aware, relating to five orders entered by this ... ...
-
In re 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 ... ...