U.S. v. Van Dorn

• Decision Date: 11 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. 88-6144,88-6144
• Citation: 925 F.2d 1331
• Parties: 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 461 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward VAN DORN, Daniel Samela a/k/a "Danny the Baker" David Iacovetti a/k/a "Fat Dave", Michael Rounsley, Frank Carrozza, Joseph Della, Daniel Mariano, Georgios Dedes, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1331

925 F.2d 1331

33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 461

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward VAN DORN, Daniel Samela a/k/a "Danny the Baker" David Iacovetti a/k/a "Fat Dave", Michael Rounsley Frank Carrozza, Joseph Della, Daniel Mariano, Georgios Dedes Defendants-Appellants.

No. 88-6144.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

March 11, 1991.

P.D. Aiken, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for Van Dorn.

Harry Gulkin, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for Samela.

Jay R. Moskowitz, Miami, Fla., for Iacovetti.

Steven Duke, New Haven, Conn., R.H. Bo Hitchcock, Hitchcock & Cunningham, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Mariano.

Michael Hursey, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Dedes.

Lawrence E. Besser, Samek & Besser, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Della.

John Lipinski, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Carrozza.

J. Rafael Rodriguez, Rodriguez & Fernandez, Miami, Fla., for Rounsley.

Frank J. Marine, Sp. Counsel to the Chief, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Joe H. Vaughn, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Miami, Fla., Louis M. Fischer, Atty., Appellate Section, Crim. Div., Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before FAY, COX, and MARKEY ^*, Circuit Judges.

FAY, Circuit Judge:

Defendants-appellants were convicted on numerous counts charging them with racketeering and with making extortionate extensions and collections of credit. We consider three issues on appeal. First, appellants Iacovetti, Rounsley, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes maintain that the district court erred in improperly restricting their cross-examination of government witness Peter Spitz and in refusing to allow them to present evidence in their own case. The evidence appellants sought to admit concerned Spitz's own drug prosecution as well as threats which Spitz allegedly made to witnesses and judicial officers, including a judge and prosecutor, involved in that prosecution. Second, appellants Iacovetti, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes appeal the admission of testimony of Frank Boni that Iacovetti was a member of the Gambino crime family. Finally, appellants Samela, Iacovetti, Rounsley, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes challenge the admission into evidence of expert testimony concerning the structure of the Gambino family of La Cosa Nostra, as well as two tape recordings on which John Gotti, reputed to be the current boss of the Gambino family, discussed the Gambino family's hierarchy. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the restrictions placed on defense counsel by the district court in their cross-examination of Peter Spitz and in the presentation of evidence in their own case, with respect to Spitz's drug-dealing activities and threats he allegedly made to federal court officers. We AFFIRM the admission of testimony of Frank Boni that Appellant Iacovetti was a member of the Gambino family. And we AFFIRM the admission into evidence of the expert testimony and tape recordings concerning the structure of the Gambino family.

Factual and Procedural History

Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Appellants David Iacovetti, Frank Carrozza, Daniel Mariano, Joseph Della, and Daniel Samela were convicted of conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), and of a conspiracy to commit that offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d). In addition, Mariano and Della were convicted on eleven counts, Carrozza on nine counts, Iacovetti on two counts, and Samela on one count of making extortionate extensions of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 892(a). All five were also convicted of conspiracy to commit that offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 892(a). Further, Mariano and Della were convicted on three counts, Iacovetti on two counts, and Samela, Carrozza, Edward Van Dorn, Michael Rounsley, and Georgios Dedes on one count each of making extortionate collections of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 894(a). Finally, all eight appellants were convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit that offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 894(a).

The government presented evidence at trial to establish that the appellants were part of a loansharking operation in Southern Florida which was operated by the Gambino organized crime family. Evidence was presented in an attempt to show the role of each appellant within the structure of the Gambino organization. ¹ The government described Iacovetti as a "capo," or captain in the organization. Carrozza was presented as a member of the "office" that loaned money and received collections. Mariano and Della were alleged to work under Iacovetti as part of one "crew," lending money at extortionate interest rates, collecting payments on the loans, and passing on a portion of those payments to the "office." Samela performed the same functions as a member of a separate crew working under Iacovetti. Van Dorn, Rounsley, and Dedes allegedly aided in collecting payments on the extortionate loans extended by Mariano and Della. Rounsley and Dedes, in particular, were alleged to have coerced borrowers who had fallen behind in their payments through the use of threats of force and violence.

Three borrowers who had obtained extortionate loans from the appellants eventually began to cooperate with law enforcement officials. Richard Curran borrowed money from Appellant Mariano, and became indebted to Appellant Samela when Samela took over an extortionate loan Curran owed to another individual. Peter Spitz borrowed money from Appellants Mariano and Della. When he fell behind in his payments, Appellants Mariano and Rounsley sought to intimidate Spitz with threats of violence. Peter Brigandi borrowed money from Appellant Mariano. When Brigandi fell behind in his payments, Appellant Dedes visited Brigandi and sought to compel payment with intimations of violence. Curran and Brigandi, wearing concealed microphones, met on numerous occasions with Appellants Mariano, Della, Carrozza, Van Dorn, and Samela to record their conversations. In addition, Curran introduced Mariano and Della to two undercover agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, on the pretext that the agents were Tampa bookmakers interested in paying off his loans. Largely as a result of this cooperation, law enforcement officials gathered sufficient evidence to bring the appellants to trial.

While appellants raise a number of issues on appeal, we find that only three points are worthy of discussion here. ² First, appellants Iacovetti, Rounsley, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes challenge the district court's restriction of their cross-examination of government witness Peter Spitz and of their presentation of evidence in their own case. The evidence appellants sought to admit concerned Spitz's own drug prosecution as well as threats which Spitz allegedly made to witnesses and judicial officers, including a judge and prosecutor, involved in that prosecution. Second, appellants Iacovetti, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes appeal the admission of testimony of Frank Boni that Iacovetti was a member of the Gambino family. Finally, appellants Samela, Iacovetti, Rounsley, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes challenge the admission into evidence of expert testimony concerning the structure of the Gambino family of La Cosa Nostra, as well as two tape recordings on which John Gotti discussed the Gambino family's hierarchy.

A. Admission of evidence with respect to government witness Peter Spitz

Appellants Iacovetti, Rounsley, Carrozza, Della, Mariano, and Dedes maintain that the district court erred in improperly restricting their cross-examination of government witness Peter Spitz and in refusing to allow them to present evidence in their own case concerning Spitz. Spitz testified on behalf of the government that he was involved in the seafood business and that he went to Appellants Mariano and Della in order to obtain a loan. Spitz maintained that when he became delinquent in his loan payments to Mariano and Della, he received a number of phone calls warning him that he ought to make payment. Spitz was eventually visited by Appellant Rounsley. Following a heated discussion, Rounsley offered to shake hands. When Spitz reached his arm through an iron gate separating them, Rounsley pulled Spitz's arm against the gate, injuring him. Rounsley threatened Spitz that this was a sample of what would happen if Spitz didn't come up with the money he owed. Overall, Spitz portrayed himself as a legitimate businessman who had been intimidated by the appellants' methods of collection.

Appellants sought to present evidence, both on cross-examination and in their own case, that Spitz had been prosecuted for drug trafficking and that the government had made previous statements to a district court judge labelling Spitz the biggest drug dealer in Broward County. In addition, appellants sought to show that Spitz had made threats to witnesses and court officers, including a prosecutor and a federal judge, involved in his drug trafficking prosecution.

Concerning the alleged threats made by Spitz against federal court officers, appellants proffered transcripts of two bond revocation hearings, wherein the Assistant United States Attorney represented that Spitz had made threats to court officers and was considered extremely dangerous. With respect to Spitz's prosecution for drug trafficking, appellants proffered a statement made by the government, in the context of a bond revocation hearing, that Spitz was the biggest drug dealer in Broward County in the 1970's. Appellants failed to persuade the district court that the evidence they sought to admit would be admissible under any Federal Rule of Evidence. While we recognize the frustration of the appellants in their efforts...