U.S. v. Pezzino, 75-2305
| Decision Date | 23 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-2305,75-2305 |
| Citation | 535 F.2d 483 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frank Joseph PEZZINO, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before HUFSTEDLER and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI, * District Judge.
Pezzino appeals from his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1084(a) and 1952(a).
He first contends that his conviction for conspiracy (§ 371) fails because Wharton's Rule 1 prevents him from being convicted for a conspiracy when the substantive offenses upon which it was based required concert of action between or among two or more persons. The argument is unavailing because the substantive offenses stated in sections 1084(a) and 1952(a) can be committed by a person acting alone as well as by persons acting in concert. For example, a bookmaker could be convicted for violating section 1084(a) if he used a telephone to lay off a bet even though his fellow gambler failed to answer the telephone, and he could violate section 1952(a) if he took a plane cross-country to pay off a bet, even if his payee turned out to be unavailable. A Wharton Rule challenge is determined by an analysis of the statute creating the substantive offense and not by the evidence introduced in a particular case to prove the offense. (Iannelli v. United States (1975)420 U.S. 770, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 43 L.Ed.2d 616). 2
Next, Pezzino contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for violating section 1084(a) because he was merely a receiver and not a transmitter of wagering information. We disagree with his characterization of the evidence, but even if we accepted his view, the evidence was adequate because the statute forbids the use of interstate facilities for sending or receiving wagering information. (E. g., United States v. Sellers (5th Cir. 1973) 483 F.2d 37; United States v. Tomeo (10th Cir. 1972) 459 F.2d 445 Sagansky v. United States (1st Cir. 1966) 358 F.2d 195.)
Finally, he argues that the affidavit supporting the application for the wiretap did not measure up to the standards of United States v. Kalustian (9th Cir. 1975) 529 F.2d 585. We disagree. The affidavit in question was not conclusory. True, it was not a model of perfection, but it was sufficient to pass the Kalustian test. It discussed all of the normal techniques that had been tried and failed, and in respect of those untried, the affidavit gave reasons why they would not work in this particular case. The only method not discussed was the use of a government informant who would consent to recording his conversations with Pezzino. The failure to try...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Costello
...an application deficient because it failed to discuss the use of a government informant making consensual recordings. United States v. Pezzino, 535 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir.) cert. denied 429 U.S. 839, 97 S.Ct. 111, 50 L.Ed.2d 106 2. Sufficiency of the Application on its Face Paragraph fifty-......
-
US v. Stevens
...does not require law enforcement officers to exhaust all possible uses of ordinary investigative techniques); United States v. Pezzino, 535 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (the necessity requirement can be satisfied even though the police failed to use one type of normal investigative......
-
U.S. v. Carneiro
...not require law enforcement officers to exhaust all possible uses of ordinary investigative techniques); United States v. Pezzino, 535 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (the necessity requirement can be satisfied even though the police failed to use one type of normal investigative ......
-
U.S. v. Spagnuolo
...States v. DiMuro, 540 F.2d 503 (1st Cir. 1976). Compare United States v. Adams, 536 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1976) and United States v. Pezzino, 535 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1976) with United States v. Smith, 519 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1975). These comparisons often lead to results difficult to harmonize. ......
-
Kiran S. Raj, Drawing a Line in the Sand: How the Federal Government Can Work With the States to Regulate Internet Gambling
...627, 630 (1968)). 59 CHARLES DOYLE, INTERNET GAMBLING: OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW 7 (2003). 60 Id. (citing United States v. Pezzion, 535 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1976)). 61 In re Mastercard Int'l, 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, 479 (E.D. La. 2001) (holding that a plain reading of the Wire Act re......