United States v. Catino

• Decision Date: 19 November 1968
• Docket Number: Docket 31991.,No. 68,68
• Citation: 403 F.2d 491
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alfred CATINO and Thomas Pagano, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

403 F.2d 491 (1968)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alfred CATINO and Thomas Pagano, Appellants.

No. 68, Docket 31991.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 9, 1968.

Decided November 19, 1968.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joshua N. Koplovitz, New York City, for appellant Alfred Catino.

Henry K. Chapman, New York City, for appellant Thomas Pagano.

William J. Gilbreth, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., and Douglas S. Liebhafsky, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, on the brief), for appellee.

Before FRIENDLY, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

The indictment in this case filed November 2, 1966 charged violations of the narcotics laws in two substantive and one conspiracy count. Count one alleged that Alfred Catino and Frank Fimmano received, concealed, sold and facilitated the concealment, transportation and sale of illegally imported heroin on June 13, 1966 in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174. Count two charged Thomas Pagano and Frank Fimmano of a like offense on August 31, 1966. The third or conspiracy count charged all three of conspiring to commit the substantive offenses. Fimmano pleaded guilty, immediately prior to trial, to all three counts. Catino and Pagano pleaded not guilty and went to trial.

At the end of the Government's case the trial court dismissed the conspiracy count for insufficient evidence. A guilty verdict was returned by the jury against each accused on the count in which he was charged on June 1, 1967. Each was sentenced to five years imprisonment, Pagano on June 30, 1967 and Catino on November 1, 1967, and both have appealed. We affirm.

The Case Against Catino

There was evidence from which the jury was entitled to find that Federal Bureau of Narcotics Agent Ioppolo, shortly after 2:00 p. m. on June 13, 1966, was introduced by an informant to the defendant Fimmano at the corner of Burke and Matthews Avenues in the Bronx and that Fimmano thereafter agreed to sell Ioppolo an eighth of a kilogram of heroin for $2,700.

When Agent Ioppolo refused to pay in advance, Fimmano said that he would have to see his "connection," who in turn would have to see the "source of supply." Around 2:45 p. m. Fimmano left, saying that he was going to see his "connection" and that he would be back shortly.

Fimmano drove to the corner of Allerton and Cruger Avenues in the Bronx, where he double-parked his car across the street from the Golden G Restaurant. Catino walked from the Golden G to the open window on the driver's side of Fimmano's car, where he and Fimmano had a conversation. Catino then walked back into the restaurant, conversed with one "Jerry," a part-owner of the Golden G, and again returned to Fimmano's car, where Agent Telb heard him say to Fimmano, "Okay, tonight," after which Catino re-entered the Golden G. Fimmano then drove back to Burke and Matthews Avenues and informed Ioppolo that the deal was set for 8:00 p. m. that evening at the same location.

At approximately 7:30 p. m., Fimmano drove up, parked his car, and joined Catino and Jerry in the Golden G. A few minutes later Catino and Fimmano walked outside and conversed for about 20 minutes. Fimmano then drove to Burke and Matthews Avenues, where, at approximately 8:00 p. m., he told Ioppolo and the informant to drive to the Roma Pizzeria on Allerton Avenue where the transaction would take place at 9:00 p. m.

After leading Ioppolo and the informant to the Roma Pizzeria, Fimmano drove to 2900 Barnes Avenue. Meanwhile, Catino had walked from the Golden G to 2900 Barnes Avenue, where, after stopping and looking up and down the street, he entered that building. When Fimmano stopped his Mercury opposite 2900 Barnes Avenue, Catino, carrying a brown paper package, came out of the building, crossed the street and entered the car when he placed the package above the right front sun vizor. Fimmano and Catino immediately drove to the corner of Allerton and Holland Avenues where, a little before 8:45 p. m., Fimmano entered the Roma Pizzeria, while Catino stood on the corner, some forty or fifty feet from the Mercury, looking up and down the street.

In the Roma Pizzeria Fimmano told Ioppolo that he had the "stuff." Fimmano then led Ioppolo to the Mercury, removed the brown paper package from above the right front sun vizor and gave it to Ioppolo, who tore a piece of the package so that he could see white powder inside, and then paid over the $2,700 to Fimmano. Following the sale Catino left the corner and walked to the Golden G where he joined Fimmano, who handed him a sum of money part of which Catino gave to Jerry.

After they had left, Agent Ioppolo gave the white powder a field test which showed that the powder was an opium derivative.

The Case Against Pagano

There was evidence from which the jury was entitled to find that at approximately 4:00 p. m. on August 31, 1966, Agent Ioppolo and the informant again met Fimmano at Burke and Matthews Avenues; Fimmano agreed to sell Ioppolo two ounces of heroin for $1,300. Fimmano left, saying he was going to see his "connection," whom the jury could have found to be Catino,¹ and that he would be back in a little while.

Fimmano drove to 2754 Matthews Avenue in the Bronx where he parked his car, entered a building, and, shortly thereafter, walked out of the building with Pagano. Fimmano and Pagano got into the Mercury and Pagano drove back to Burke and Matthews Avenues where, at approximately 4:30 p. m., he dropped off Fimmano. Fimmano joined Ioppolo and said that the person who had just driven away in his automobile was his connection's partner, who was "going to get the stuff." About 6:25 p. m., when Pagano returned to the corner of Burke and Matthews Avenues, Fimmano said to Ioppolo, "Tommy finally got here." Fimmano then left Ioppolo's car and walked to his own car, where Pagano handed him a brown paper package containing heroin which Fimmano delivered to Ioppolo for $1,300.

Issues on Appeal

The appellants protest that the conspiracy count was included in the indictment in bad faith because it was not alleged "with reasonable expectation that sufficient proof would be forthcoming at trial." United States v. Aiken, 373 F.2d 294, 299 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 833, 88 S.Ct. 32, 19 L.Ed. 2d 93 (1967). Although this claim is perhaps arguable, we do not conclude that there was a lack of good faith here. There was evidence in the record that Fimmano referred to Catino as his connection at the time of the June 13 sale and that he spoke of Pagano as his connection's partner during the August 31 sale. Moreover, both purchases were made from Fimmano within a relatively short time, in the same neighborhood and under the same circumstances; Fimmano was not himself the source of supply but arranged for it through connections, and it is clear that Catino and Pagano were not strangers to each other but old friends. These facts are sufficient to contradict the assertion that the Government could not reasonably have expected to produce sufficient evidence at the trial to get to the jury on the conspiracy count.

Catino and Pagano also argue that the dismissal of the conspiracy count ipso facto required the granting of a severance without any showing of specific prejudice. They base their claim on the minority opinion in the five to four decision in Schaffer v. United States, 362 U.S. 511, 518-524, 80 S.Ct. 945, 4 L.Ed.2d 921 (1960), but we see no present reason to depart from the majority opinion in that case, which affirmed United States v. Schaffer, 266 F.2d 435 (2 Cir. 1959)² and held, p. 514 of 80 S.Ct., that where the initial joinder of defendants was permissible under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the test, after dismissal of a conspiracy count before submission to the jury, is whether a severance should have been ordered under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.³ See also United States v. Aiken, supra. In Schaffer the number of defendants and transactions produced circumstances which the minority of the Court felt were bound to cause confusion in the minds of the jurors and created a danger that the criminal acts of an individual accused were likely to be imputed to other defendants. In the present case, however, there are only two parties and two transactions and the possibility of confusion, if any, is minimal. Compare United States v. Branker, 395 F.2d 881 (2 Cir. 1968).

The appellant Catino claims prejudice on the ground that the principal issue in the case was one of credibility of the several narcotics agents testifying for the Government, on the one hand, against that of himself, on the other hand, when he testified that he had nothing to do with the unlawful transaction, a position he sought to support by an alibi together with testimony from Fimmano, and that it was likely that the jury would have considered that the agents "were apparently not mistaken or lying in connection with their testimony with regard to co-defendant Pagano and the sale of August 31," because Pagano did not take the stand to contradict them. Catino argues that this would be so prejudicial a make-weight that the jury would have decided the credibility issue against him. We consider this a rather remote and speculative possibility, which falls far short of a showing of prejudice, particularly in view of the trial court's charge which clearly and forcibly instructed the jury as to separate consideration of each of the cases.

Catino and Pagano argue that the trial court erred in denying their respective motions at the close of the Government's case for a severance and for a mistrial because the prejudice, which they allege was implicit in the admission of evidence on the conspiracy count, which was dismissed, could not have been cured by the trial judge's limiting instructions in his charge because, adequate as they may have been under...