U.S. v. Panebianco

• Decision Date: 14 October 1976
• Docket Number: D,Nos. 106-11,262,s. 106-11
• Citation: U.S. v. Panebianco, 543 F.2d 447 (2nd Cir. 1976)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James PANEBIANCO et al., Defendants-Appellants. ockets 76-1132-3, 76-1151, 76-1206-7, 76-1219, 76-1366.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 447

543 F.2d 447

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.James PANEBIANCO et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 106-11, 262, Dockets 76-1132-3, 76-1151, 76-1206-7,

76-1219, 76-1366.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 16, 1976.

Decided Oct. 14, 1976.

James P. Lavin, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City(Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., Nathaniel H. Akerman, Dominic F. Amorosa, Ronald L. Garnett, and Frederick T. Davis, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Edward Panzer, New York City, for defendant-appellantJames Panebianco.

Abraham Solomon, New York City, on the brief, for defendant-appellantPatsy Anatala.

Phillip M. Sutley, Sutley & Marr, Baltimore, Md., on the brief, for defendant-appellantSnider Blanchard.

Robert Keshner, New York City(Murray Richman, New York City, and Arlen S. Yalkut, Spring Valley, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellantRenato Croce.

Arlen S. Yalkut, Spring Valley, N. Y. (Bleifer & Yalkut, P. C., Spring Valley, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellantCharles Brooks.

Henry Putzer, III, New York City, for defendant-appellantLawrence Iarossi.

Michael P. Stokamer, New York City(Stokamer & Epstein, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellantLeonard Rizzo.

Before LUMBARD, MANSFIELD and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge:

James Panebianco, Patsy Anatala, Snider Blanchard, Renato Croce, Charles Brooks, Lawrence Iarossi, and Leonard Rizzo appeal from convictions and sentences entered on March 24, 1976 after a ten-day jury trial before Judge Bonsal in the Southern District.¹They were convicted for a conspiracy to violate federal narcotics laws between 1968 and 1973 and for all of various substantive narcotics distribution offenses with which they were charged.Of seven other co-conspirators charged in the same indictment, three pled guilty prior to trial, three had their cases severed, and one is a fugitive.

Most of the appellants allege that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find one unitary conspiracy.In addition, Iarossi contends that he withdrew from the conspiracy early in 1970, and he therefore claims protection from the statute of limitations and argues that his sentencing as a second narcotics offender under a statute not enacted until October 1970 was unconstitutionally retroactive.Rizzo challenges the admission of testimony that he had threatened the life of a government witness; he also disputes the finding of venue over the two substantive offenses of which he was convicted and asserts a variance between indictment and proof.Croce maintains that evidence used against him was uncovered in an unconstitutional search and seizure.Blanchard disputes the relevance of an address book entry admitted against him.A claim of juror bias is also made.Since Judge Bonsal's disposition of each of these matters was entirely proper, we affirm.

Three other members of the conspiracy named in the indictment testified for the government at trial: Mary Mobley, Anthony Manfredonia, and Thomas Murray.The most important witness was Manfredonia, a New York heroin dealer with whom the various other conspirators were involved as suppliers, customers, and fellow middlemen.During the first half of the conspiracy, Manfredonia's principal partner in crime was defendant Iarossi.In 1970, however, Manfredonia took a vacation from heroin dealing for roughly six months, and upon his return he took Joseph Barone as a business associate instead of Iarossi.With Barone, as with Iarossi, Manfredonia continued to rely on the same regular source of supply (Vincent Papa in Queens) and continued to sell to his original customers (Alvin Clark and defendant Blanchard), although new deliverymen and new customers were added at various times.Further details of the conspiracy will reveal themselves as we describe the government's case against each of the defendants.

Snider "Jap" Blanchard of Baltimore bought heroin from Manfredonia from 1966 through early 1973, except for the roughly six months in 1970 when Manfredonia temporarily ceased dealing in narcotics.²

Lawrence Iarossi was Manfredonia's confederate from 1967 to 1970.In 1968 the two started selling to Alvin Clark in Pittsburgh in addition to Blanchard.Clark had a carrier, Mary Mobley, who testified at trial that both Manfredonia and Iarossi had made deliveries to her.

About January 1970 Iarossi told Manfredonia that he was going to let another middleman, Graziano Rizzo, supply Clark because he himself owed Rizzo some money.In February or March 1970, Iarossi delivered a half kilogram of heroin to Blanchard in Baltimore.On April 22, 1970, Iarossi was sentenced in the Southern District for an unrelated narcotics offense and he has been in prison ever since that date, although no evidence of his imprisonment was adduced at trial.

Leonard Rizzo was Graziano Rizzo's brother and partner.The two made sales to Clark from early 1970 through 1971.Mobley testified she was first introduced to Leonard Rizzo by Clark in Pittsburgh near the end of July 1970.Thereafter, she made numerous trips to New York on behalf of Clark to receive heroin packages from each of the brothers.

Also, on one occasion in early 1971Leonard Rizzo supplied heroin to Manfredonia himself when Manfredonia's regular supplier, Papa, was temporarily unable to produce.Conversely, on one occasion in June 1971Graziano Rizzo bought some heroin from Manfredonia.In addition, Graziano Rizzo sold a package of heroin to Manfredonia and Barone sometime in 1972.

Renato Croce was a partner of the Rizzo brothers.Mobley testified that on one occasion when she met Leonard Rizzo in New York, Croce was with him carrying the heroin.Further evidence against Croce was a pound of heroin seized by police agents in the Bronx in 1973 after a search of a car in which Croce and Graziano Rizzo had been driving.Prior to the seizure the agents had observed Croce and Rizzo in circumstances that strongly implied they were dealing in heroin.In this connection, the agents also arrested a customer of Rizzo and Croce's, Richard Navedo, in whose address book was discovered the entry "Jim Blanchard(The Jap) Somewhere on Green St., Balt., Md."DefendantSnider Blanchard's nickname was "Jap" and he lived on Greenspan Avenue in Baltimore.

James Panebianco was introduced to Manfredonia by Iarossi in 1968.In 1969he brought some heroin to the basement of Iarossi's Bronx house for testing.On Manfredonia's mentioning to him that some of Blanchard's friends were having trouble getting heroin, Panebianco offered to provide a half kilogram.The deal fell through, however, because Blanchard's friends found another source.

In February or March 1971, Panebianco sold a quarter kilogram of heroin to Manfredonia because he was temporarily unable to obtain heroin from Papa.In July 1971 Papa's heroin stash was seized by police in Queens, and Manfredonia again went to Panebianco and bought a half kilogram.A day or so later, Graziano Rizzo came to Manfredonia's house and said he too was having trouble getting heroin; Manfredonia therefore sold him a quarter kilogram of the heroin obtained from Panebianco.

Charles Brooks was introduced to Manfredonia by Barone in the summer of 1971.Barone told Manfredonia that Brooks owed him money for heroin.Manfredonia accompanied Barone on two visits to Brooks' store on 116th Street; on the first occasion Brooks paid Barone $28,000 on his debt and on the second Brooks bought a half kilogram for $13,000.

A second witness against Brooks was Thomas Murray.Twice Murray went with Barone on deliveries to Brooks at Bronx locations.Also, at Barone's instruction in late 1974 or 1975, Murray contacted Brooks to negotiate about narcotics; Brooks, however, rejected Murray's offer as too expensive.

Patsy Anatala joined Manfredonia's organization in the fall of 1971.He brought in with him a new customer, William Huff, to whom he, Manfredonia, and Barone delivered heroin six to eight times that autumn.Murray testified that Anatala was present at a sale from Graziano Rizzo to Manfredonia and Barone at some time in 1972.Also, in November 1972, G. T. Watson, a former member of the conspiracy who had become an informant, purchased $10,000 worth of heroin from Anatala and Barone; Watson was accompanied by an undercover agent, Arthur Carter, who testified at trial.

In the face of the substantial evidence adduced by the government against all seven defendants, only two of the defendants took the stand.Leonard Rizzo testified that he had been unaware of his brother Graziano's narcotics business.³Croce denied any involvement in narcotics and claimed that his payments to Barone had been only in connection with Barone's operation as a moneylender.

The Claim of Multiple Conspiracies

As has become common in narcotics conspiracy cases, the claim is made that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of a single, overall conspiracy.Appellants assert that there were actually at least three separate and distinct conspiracies: (1) prior to Manfredonia's six-month vacation and Iarossi's imprisonment in spring 1970, a conspiracy with supplier Papa, middlemen Manfredonia and Iarossi, and customers Blanchard and Clark & Mobley as the principal figures; (2) after Manfredonia's return to the business at Barone's request in fall 1970, a conspiracy with supplier Papa, occasional suppliers Panebianco and the Rizzo brothers, middlemen Manfredonia and Barone with couriers Anatala and Murray, and customers Blanchard, Clark & Mobley, Watson, Brooks, and Huff; and (3) the Rizzo, Rizzo & Croce operation supplying Clark & Mobley and Navedo.We conclude, however, that there was ample evidence for the jury to find that all of these operations were part of one ongoing conspiracy.

Most narcotics networks involve loosely knit vertically-integrated combinations.SeeUnited States v....