Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Limone v. U.S., Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.

Document Cited authorities 128 Cited in 67 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Citation497 F.Supp.2d 143
Decision Date26 July 2007
Docket NumberCiv. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.
PartiesPeter J. LIMONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

497 F.Supp.2d 143

Peter J. LIMONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

July 26, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edwin Durham, Michael Rachlis, Rachlis, Durham, Duff, Adler, Chicago, IL, Howard Friedman, Jennifer L. Bills, Myong J. Joun, Law Offices of Howard Friedman, P.C., Christine Marie Griffin, Juliane Balliro, John C. Foskett, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, Michael Avery, Suffolk University Law School, William T. Koski, Koski & Kearns LLP, Richard D. Bickelman, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP, Daniel R. Deutsch, Deutsch Williams Brooks Derensis & Holland, P.C., Boston, MA, Bridget Ciarlo, Glenn E. Coe, Austin J. McGuigan, Rome McGuigan Sabanosh, P.C., Joseph B. Burns, Hoberman, McGuigan, Freidman, McNamara & Ruberto, P.C., Hartford, CT, Victor J. Garo, Law Offices of Victor J. Garo, Medford, MA, John Cavicchi, Boston, Ma, for Plaintiffs.

Keith H. Liddle, Mary McElroy Leach, Bridget Bailey Lipscomb, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, John M. Connolly, Michael B. Meyer, Meyer, Connolly, Sloman & MacDonald, LLP, James M. Chernetsky, City of Boston Law Department, Thomas R. Donohue, Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, Edward J Lonergan, Boston, MA, E. Peter Mullane, Mullane, Michel & McInnes, Cambridge, MA, Katherine A. Carey, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Dennis Condon, Waltham,. MA, pro se.

John Morris, Niceville, FL, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: BENCH TRIAL

GERTNER, District Judge. 

                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................151
                 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................155
                III. FACT FINDINGS ........................................................157
                     A. The FBI Program to "Get" La Cosa Nostra ...........................159
                         1. Patriarca Wire ................................................160
                         2. "Top Echelon Criminal Informant Program" ......................160
                         3. Significance of (1) and (2) ...................................161
                     B. The Boston FBI, the Flemmi Brothers and Barboza ...................161
                         1. Agents Rico and Condon ........................................161
                         2. The Flemmi Brothers ...........................................163
                             a. Jimmy Flemmi ..............................................163
                             b. Stephen Flemmi ............................................164
                         3. Using the Flemmi Brothers to Turn Barboza into a Witness ......166
                         4. Rico and Condon Meet with Barboza .............................167
                             a. Meetings Before September 1967 ............................167
                                 (1) March 8, 1967 .........................................167
                                 (2) March 21, 1967 ........................................168
                                 (3) April 11, 1967 ........................................169
                                 (4) April 27, 1967 ........................................169
                                 (5) May 22, 1967 ..........................................169
                                 (6) Summer of 1967 ........................................170
                             b. Barboza Mentions the Plaintiffs for the First Time on
                September 8, 1967 ........................................171
                                 (1) What the FBI Knew about the Deegan Murder Before
                The Murder ...........................................172
                                 (2) What the FBI Knew after the Murder ....................173
                                 (3) What the Local Authorities Knew about the
                Deegan Murder ........................................177
                             c. The September 8 Interview and the Indictment ..............178
                     C. The Deegan Trial ..................................................181
                         1. Trial Preparation: An Allegedly "Independent Investigation" ...181
                         2. The Trial .....................................................184
                         3. The Verdict ...................................................189
                     D. Between the Deegan Murder Trial and the Nolle Prosequi ............189
                         1. Praises for Rico and Condon ...................................189
                         2. The Involvement of the FBI Hierarchy ..........................190
                         3. Protecting and Providing for Barboza ..........................191
                         4. 1970 Rico Admission ...........................................191
                         5. Barboza Attempts to Recant ....................................192
                         6. Barboza Murders Clay Wilson and Brags about His False
                Testimony in the Deegan Trial ...............................194
                         7. Rico's Methods Are Exposed — Still Nothing is Done ...........197
                         8. The FBI and Stephen Flemmi in the 1980s .......................198
                         9. Deegan Defendants' Efforts Post-Conviction ....................199
                             a. Salvati Commutation Petitions .............................199
                             b. Limone Commutation Petitions ..............................200
                             c. Tameleo Commutation Petitions .............................201
                
                d. Greco Commutation Petitions ...............................201
                        10. The Conspiracy & Silence ......................................202
                 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................................................202
                      A. Prior Issues .....................................................203
                          1. Discretionary Function Exception .............................203
                          2. The FTCA's Exception for Malicious Prosecution Claims ........204
                      B. Malicious Prosecution ............................................205
                          1. Initiation ...................................................207
                              a. The FBI's Role in cringing about the Prosecution of the
                Plaintiffs: More than a Host ...........................209
                              b. The Information Provided by Barboza Was False or
                Misleading — and the FBI Knew it ......................211
                              c. There Was No Independent Investigation: There Could Not
                Be .....................................................211
                              d. The FBI's Efforts Continued over Thirty Years ............212
                          2. Lack of Probable Cause .......................................213
                              a. Information Available to the FBI at the Time .............214
                                  (1) Barboza's Credibility214
                                  (2) Limone and Tameleo ...................................214
                                  (3) Greco ................................................214
                                  (4) Salvati ..............................................215
                              b. Conviction is Not Conclusive Proof of Probable Cause on
                these Facts ............................................215
                                  (1) Subornation ..........................................216
                                  (2) Due Process ..........................................218
                                  (3) FBI's Misconduct/Barboza's Testimony — The Sole
                Foundation .........................................219
                                      (a) The Fitzgerald Bribe Testimony ...................219
                                      (b) The Stathopolous Identification ..................219
                              c. No Other Evidence ........................................219
                          3. Malice and Termination .......................................220
                          4. Not a "Failure to Disclose" Claim ............................221
                          5. Massachusetts Survival Statute ...............................222
                      C. Civil Conspiracy .................................................223
                      D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress .....................226
                          1. Deegan Defendants' Claims ....................................226
                          2. Family Members' Claims .......................................228
                              a. Substantially Contemporaneous Knowledge ..................228
                              b. Severe Emotional Response ................................229
                      E. Negligence .......................................................229
                          1. The Government Was Directly Negligent ........................230
                          2. Negligent Supervision ........................................232
                  V. DAMAGES ..............................................................234
                      A. Facts ............................................................235
                          1. Limone Plaintiffs ............................................235
                              a. Peter Limone Sr.  ........................................235
                              b. The Family ...............................................236
                          2. Salvati Plaintiffs ...........................................237
                              a. Joseph Salvati ...........................................237
                              b. The Family ...............................................238
                          3. Tameleo Plaintiffs ...........................................239
                              a. Henry Tameleo ............................................239
                              b. The Family ...............................................239
                          4. Greco and Werner Plaintiffs ..................................240
                              a. Louis Greco Sr ...........................................240
                              b. The Family ...............................................241
                                 (1) The Children ..........................................241
                
                (2) The Marriage ..........................................242
                      B. Law ..............................................................243
                          1. Damages for the Deegan Defendants: Limone, Tameleo, Greco
                and Salvati ................................................243
                          2. Damages for Family Members ...................................245
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kempthorne
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 26, 2008
    ...employed as the Principal Deputy Assistant in 2007 when she made these statements to Attorney Shapiro. See Limone v. United States, 497 F.Supp.2d 143, 163 n. 31 (D.Mass.2007) (finding testimony of currently unavailable FBI agents before House Committee on Government Reform admissible as par......
  • Bowling v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • September 17, 2010
    ...264 F.2d 709, 710 (5th Cir.1959) ("the United States is by its nature incapable of entering into the conspiracy charged"). 43 497 F.Supp.2d 143 (D.Mass.2007). 44 Id. at 223-24 & n. 182. 45 Sunlight Saunas, Inc. v. Sundance Sauna, Inc., 427 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1074 (D.Kan.2006) (citing Stoldt v.......
  • Limone v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 27, 2009
    ...decide. We direct the reader who hungers for more detail to consult the district court's capstone opinion in Limone v. United States (Limone IV), 497 F.Supp.2d 143 (D.Mass.2007). We bifurcate our account. First, we limn the unsavory history of the Deegan murder and its aftermath. Then, we m......
  • Litif v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • January 29, 2010
    ...v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 104 S.Ct. 568, 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984). That is, the Plaintiffs in this case cannot use the decisions in McIntyre or Limone conclusively to establish facts. Nonetheless, it is within the sound discretion of this Court to manage the cases before it efficiently. See, e......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Innocence after death.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 60 No. 3, March 2010
    • March 22, 2010
    ...(110) News in Brief; 15 Years After Death Life Sentence Nixed, BOSTON HERALD, Jan. 26, 2007, at 17. (111) See Limone v. United States, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143, 250-51 (D. Mass. 2007). On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the full award of damages on the alternate finding of emotional distress.......

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