U.S. v. Zanin

• Decision Date: 29 September 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 86-2633,86-2634,s. 86-2633
• Citation: 831 F.2d 740
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gino P. ZANIN and Phyllis K. Zanin, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 740

831 F.2d 740

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gino P. ZANIN and Phyllis K. Zanin, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 86-2633, 86-2634.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 24, 1987.

Decided Sept. 28, 1987.

As Amended Sept. 29, 1987.

Paul A. Wagner, Sheila M. Murphy, The Murphy Law Firm, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.

Scott T. Mendeloff, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anton R. Valukas, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and CUDAHY and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Chief Judge.

Gino and Phyllis Zanin were convicted of various drug-related offenses. Both defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions. In addition, they object to a statement made by the prosecutor during closing argument and the trial court's denial of Phyllis Zanin's motion to sever her trial from her husband's. We reject defendants' challenges and affirm both convictions.

I.

Gino Zanin operated a narcotics distribution network from his family home in Chicago. After a search of the Zanin home revealed a scale for weighing narcotics and $7,000 in cash, agents installed an authorized wiretap in the Zanin's telephone. The agents intercepted a number of calls relating to the collection of narcotics debts and the delivery of narcotics. On the day the wiretap was installed, agents impounded a 1977 International Truck, a consensual search of which revealed nearly 800 pounds of marijuana and 500 grams of heroin. It was later revealed that Gino Zanin had apparently hired the drivers to transport the drugs from Texas to Chicago.

The indictment charged eight individuals, including the Zanins, with various narcotics violations. Co-indictees Julio Courbassier, Enrique Esparza, Maria Carmen Santamaria, Carlita "Carli" Solis, Ignacio Otero and Carlos Castillo pled guilty prior to trial. After Phyllis Zanin's motion to sever her trial from her husband's was denied, the Zanins proceeded to trial together. The government's case was based, in large part, on tapes of 121 telephone conversations which were introduced into evidence.

Gino Zanin was found guilty of twenty-seven counts of distributing controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1); using the telephone to facilitate distribution of narcotics, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(b); conspiracy to violate section 843(b), 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846; travelling across state lines to engage in racketeering activity, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2 and 1952; and of operating a continuing criminal enterprise, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848. Phyllis Zanin was charged with conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846, and use of the telephone to facilitate drug distribution, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(b). Her defense included a good deal of testimony regarding her reputation in the community and charitable work. Phyllis Zanin was convicted of seven counts of using the telephone to facilitate distribution of narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 843(b). She was acquitted of conspiracy and sentenced to five years of probation in addition to eighty hours of community service.

On appeal the Zanins contend that they were deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor urged the jury to consider "the children of the families where [Gino Zanin] was selling heroin to." The Zanins also argue that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions. In addition, Phyllis Zanin complains of the court's denial of her motion for severance.

II. Closing Argument

During closing argument, the government prosecutor asked the jury to consider "the children of the families where [Gino Zanin] was selling heroin to...." ¹ (Tr. 1098). In deciding whether a prosecutor's comments are so prejudicial as to require reversal of a conviction, we have noted:

The question to be decided is whether ... statements were so inflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant petitioner as to deprive him of a fair trial and thus deprive him of his liberty without due process of law as proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

United States ex rel. Clark v. Fike, 538 F.2d 750, 760 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1064, 97 S.Ct. 791, 50 L.Ed.2d 781 (1977) (quoting United States ex rel. Kirk v. Petrelli, 331 F.Supp. 792, 795-96 (N.D.Ill.1971), aff'd, 492 F.2d 1245 (7th Cir.1974)). The Supreme Court has clarified our task on review, noting that the court should focus on the "probable effect the prosecutor's response would have on the jury's ability to judge the evidence fairly." United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985).

In United States v. Zylstra, 713 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 965 104 S.Ct. 403, 78 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983), we approved a remark strikingly similar to the one here. The prosecutor in Zylstra referred to defendants' importing "200,000 pounds of marijuana into our country for distribution to our children and friends." After considering the comment in context, we determined that the prosecutor was referring to the "threat to our society as a whole ('families' and 'friends' used as generalities) rather than to any individual's particular family and friends." Id. at 1340. Accord United States v. Peco, 784 F.2d 798 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2281, 90 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986) (nothing inappropriate in prosecutor's comment that cocaine is "the greatest threat to the lives and well-being of our children. * * * This is death, and people who deal in it are merchants in death."). Zylstra thus implicitly found references to individuals' particular family and friends to be inappropriate. Defendants argue that the prosecutor's comment here referred to an individual's particular family and to the jurors' children specifically. We disagree.

Discussing the children of the families to which heroin was sold was no more of a particularized comment than discussing the "threat posed to our children and friends" in Zylstra. We have noted, most recently in Peco, 784 F.2d at 810, that a prosecutor may "impress upon the jury the seriousness of the charges and a comment on the gravity of the drug problem in the country is certainly not inappropriate." Id. (quoting Zylstra, 713 F.2d at 1340). Accordingly, we find nothing inappropriate in the prosecutor's statement.

Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Gino Zanin was convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848(b)(2)(A). ² To violate the section, a defendant must have acted "in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position or any other position of management...." ³ The government charged that Gino Zanin supervised the activities of co-indictees Julio Courbassier, Maria Carmen Santamaria, Carlita "Carli" Solis, Ignacio Otero, Enrique Esparza, Ubaldo Esparza-Corral, Lino Arrendondo Celio and Phyllis Zanin. Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be rejected if we find, "after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, [that] any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see also United States v. Perlaza, 818 F.2d 1354, 1358 (7th Cir.1987). Defendant concedes that he acted in concert with five or more people but contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he supervised, managed or organized their acts as required by the statute (Def.Br. at 18).

Defendant also admits that he supervised the activities of Julio Courbassier (Def.Br. at 20). The evidence of Gino Zanin's supervision over the remaining members of the enterprise consisted of 121 monitored telephone conversations admitted into evidence. In several conversations, Maria Carmen Santamaria kept Gino Zanin apprised of the amount of money she had collected for Zanin and the number of customers she had found. Gino Zanin called Carlita "Carli" Solis to make a delivery for him when Santamaria was unable to do so. In a conversation with Ignacio Otero, Zanin and Otero discussed narcotics that Otero had delivered in Puerto Rico apparently at Gino Zanin's direction. The two occupants of the impounded truck, Ubaldo Esparza-Corral and Lino Arrendondo Celio, were apparently hired by Gino Zanin. In addition, Phyllis Zanin often appeared to operate under Gino's direction.

Defendant argues that the conversations establish only that the defendant acted in concert with the others, and fail to establish that Gino occupied any "superior" position. Conversations regarding drug transactions are rarely clear. A factfinder must always draw inferences from veiled allusions and code words. Here, the jury was warranted in drawing the inference that at least four individuals, in addition to Courbassier, operated at Gino Zanin's direction. A jury's verdict must be upheld when supported by reasonable inferences. United States v. Moya, 721 F.2d 606, 610 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1037, 104 S.Ct. 1312, 79 L.Ed.2d 709 (1984).

Severance

Phyllis Zanin argues that the trial court erred in refusing to sever her trial from her husband's. In determining whether to grant a motion to sever, a court should carefully balance the public interest in having joint trials against the potential for undue prejudice or confusion. See United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 159 (7th Cir.1987); United States v. Peters, 791 F.2d 1270, 1287 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 168, 93 L.Ed.2d 106 (1986). The court's determination of this balancing process is subject only to our review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pavelski, 789 F.2d 485, 491 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 322, 93 L.Ed.2d 295 (1986).

A joint trial will always raise the specter of jury confusion, but to obtain severance, a defendant must show that he or she cannot get a fair trial without it. United States v....