U.S. v. Gigante, CR 93-368(JBW).

Citation982 F.Supp. 140
Decision Date29 October 1997
Docket NumberNo. CR 93-368(JBW).,CR 93-368(JBW).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Vincent GIGANTE, Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

Zachary W. Carter, U.S. Atty., Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY by Andrew Weissmann, George A. Stamboulidis, Daniel S. Dorsky, for the U.S.

Culleton, Marinaccio & Foglia, White Plains, NY by James J. Culleton, Michael A. Marinaccio, Philip Foglia; Steven R. Kartagener, New York City, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                   I. Introduction ...................................................................... 145
                  II. Facts ............................................................................. 145
                      A. Commission Trial ............................................................... 145
                      B. 1990 Windows Trial ............................................................. 146
                      C. Competency ..................................................................... 146
                          1. Competency Hearing and Proceedings Before Judge Nickerson .................. 146
                          2. Competency Rehearing ....................................................... 147
                      D. Continued Defense Attempts to Delay Trial ...................................... 148
                      E. 1993 Indictment ................................................................ 148
                          1. Charts Outlining 1990 "Windows" Indictment ................................. 149
                             a. 1990 Counts ............................................................. 149
                             b. 1990 RICO Predicate Acts ................................................ 149
                          2. Charts Outlining 1993 Superseding Indictment ............................... 149
                             a. 1993 Counts ............................................................. 149
                             b. 1993 RICO Predicate Acts ................................................ 149
                      F. Government Dismissal of 1990 Indictment ........................................ 150
                      G. Pre-Verdict Statute of Limitations Claims by Defense ........................... 150
                      H. Trial and Evidence Presented ................................................... 150
                      I. Jury Verdict ................................................................... 153
                          1. Items Upon Which the Jury Agreed ........................................... 153
                             a. Items Proven ............................................................ 153
                             b. Items Not Proven ........................................................ 153
                          2. Items Upon Which Jury Could Not Agree ...................................... 153
                      J. Remand Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143 ....................................... 154
                      K. Post-Verdict Defense Motions ................................................... 154
                 III. Statute of Limitations Issues ..................................................... 154
                      A. Law ............................................................................ 154
                          1. Basic rules ................................................................ 154
                          2. Statute of Limitations and Superseding Indictments ......................... 155
                          3. Analogy to Double Jeopardy Law ............................................. 157
                      B. Application of Law to Facts .................................................... 158
                          1. Post-Verdict Statute of Limitations Claims — Charges Dismissed ............... 158
                          2. Pre-Verdict Statute of Limitations Claims — Charges Remaining ................ 159
                             a. Count One ............................................................... 159
                                (1) Predicate Act Nine .................................................. 159
                                (2) Predicate Act Ten ................................................... 159
                                (3) Predicate Acts Eleven through Thirty-Three .......................... 159
                                (4) Predicate Acts Thirty-Four through Thirty-Nine ...................... 163
                                (5) Predicate Act Forty ................................................. 163
                                (6) Predicate Act Forty-One ............................................. 163
                             b. Count Two ............................................................... 164
                             c. Count Three ............................................................. 164
                             d. Count Five .............................................................. 164
                             e. Count Six ............................................................... 164
                          3. Charges Upon Which Jury Could Not Agree .................................... 165
                 IV. Competency Issues .................................................................. 166
                
                      A. Competency and Standing Trial .................................................. 166
                      B. Competency and Withdrawing from a Conspiracy ................................... 168
                          1. Law ........................................................................ 168
                          2. Application of Law to Facts ................................................ 173
                             a. Relevant Facts .......................................................... 173
                             b. Jury Charge Offered ..................................................... 173
                             c. Rejection of Proposed Withdrawal Charge ................................. 173
                             d. Effect of Failure to Accept Proposed Charge ............................. 173
                      C. Competency and Sentencing ...................................................... 173
                      D. New Evidence and Incompetency Claims ........................................... 175
                          1. Relevant Facts ............................................................. 175
                          2. Law ........................................................................ 176
                          3. Application of Laws to Facts ............................................... 176
                   V. Conclusion ........................................................................ 177
                 Exhibit A: Completed Jury Verdict Sheet ................................................ 177
                
I. Introduction

Found guilty by jury of racketeering (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), racketeering conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), extortion conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), labor payoff conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and two counts of conspiring to murder in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), defendant moves for: (1) dismissal of count four of the indictment; (2) a de novo determination of defendant's competency to participate in his criminal proceedings, tantamount to a motion for new trial based upon purported "new" evidence; and (3) any other relief to which he may be entitled. Defendant's motion is denied except that (1) count four of the indictment is dismissed on statute of limitations grounds and (2) a mistrial is granted as to RICO predicate acts two through five.

II. Facts

The defendant was raised in a decent family. He became a thug in his teens, quickly moving into leadership of the Genovese Crime Family by the 1980's and control of a Commission of mob leaders coordinating mafia activities in the Northeast of the United States. He and his allies and subordinates dominated many industries and unions including those in the building trades such as windows, concrete, trucking; and trades associated with garbage collecting, painting, and conventions. With the assistance of corrupt union and business leaders and other gangland associates, the defendant earned millions of dollars from these activities as well as from loansharking, hijacking, gambling, and other criminal conduct.

A. Commission Trial

By appointing street bosses to hide behind, and feigning mental incapacity, the defendant avoided prosecution for his crimes while other gang leaders were tried and sent to prison.

In the mid-1980's, for example, there was a government crack down on organized crime in New York. Several heads of New York's crime families were prosecuted. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 528 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3192, 105 L.Ed.2d 700 (1989); United States v. Langella, 804 F.2d 185, 186 (2d Cir.1986); see also, President's Commission on Organized Crime, Interim Report to the President and Attorney General, The Cash Connection: Organized Crime, Financial Institutions, and Money Laundering 31-32 (Oct. 1984)(federal investigation of money laundering scheme known as "The Pizza Connection"). Among those brought to trial was Genovese Crime Family street-boss Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno. He, with several of his mafia cohorts, was indicted, found guilty, and sentenced to a term of one-hundred years imprisonment. See United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 528 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3192, 105 L.Ed.2d 700 (1989). In fact, the evidence at the instant trial demonstrated that Mr. Salerno, while a guilty criminal, was probably acting under the directions of defendant Gigante.

B. 1990 Windows Trial

On May 30, 1990, Mr. Gigante, along with fourteen others, was charged in a sixty-nine count indictment with illegally attempting to control New York's window manufacture and installation industry through criminal racketeering, money laundering, extortion, mail fraud, and other improper acts. See, e.g., United States v. McGowan, 58 F.3d 8, 10 (2d Cir.1995). Of the sixty-nine counts in the "windows" indictment, defendant himself was charged in thirty-five.

The indictment alleged a racketeering "enterprise" that was expansive, involving many crime family and non-crime family participants. One-hundred nine predicate acts were charged in support of the RICO counts. Defendant, it was alleged, took part in only some of these activities. As...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • U.S. v. Eppolito
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 30 Junio 2006
    ...state district attorneys. Yet, its very effectiveness requires care that it is not utilized to commit injustice." United States v. Gigante, 982 F.Supp. 140, 169 (E.D.N.Y.1997). The "looseness and pliability" of the doctrine of conspiracy "present inherent dangers which should be in the back......
  • U.S. v. Lowry
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 5 Enero 2006
    ...the initial indictment is not reduced if charges in a superceding indictment are substantially the same. See United States v. Gigante, 982 F.Supp. 140, 155 (E.D.N.Y.1997). Therefore, as the Seventh Circuit recognized in United States v. Ross, 77 F.3d 1525 (7th Cir.1996), the relevant questi......
  • U.S. v. Gigante, CR 93-368 JBW.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 5 Enero 1998
    ...States v. Gigante, 166 F.R.D. 3 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (Nickerson, J.), aff'd, 85 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.1996) (bail); United States v. Gigante, 982 F.Supp. 140 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (Weinstein, J.) (post-verdict motions); United States v. Gigante, 971 F.Supp. 755 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (Weinstein, J.) (testimony of wit......
  • Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 8 Diciembre 2011
    ...burden” to show that relief is warranted. United States v. Garcia–Alvarez, 541 F.3d 8, 17 (1st Cir.2008); accord United States v. Gigante, 982 F.Supp. 140, 176 (E.D.N.Y.1997), aff'd, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114, 120 S.Ct. 931, 145 L.Ed.2d 811 (2000). Here, the Cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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