United States v. Dicristina, 11–CR–414.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Citation | 886 F.Supp.2d 164 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–CR–414.,11–CR–414. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Lawrence DICRISTINA, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 21 August 2012 |
886 F.Supp.2d 164
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lawrence DICRISTINA, Defendant.
No. 11–CR–414.
United States District Court,
E.D. New York.
Aug. 21, 2012.
[886 F.Supp.2d 166]
Office of the United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY, By: Marisa M. Seifan, Nathan Daniel Reilly, for the government.
Kannan Sundaram, Federal Defenders, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
Kenneth M. Dreifach, ZwillGen, PLLC, New York, NY, By: Thomas C. Goldstein, Tejinder Singh, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., for amicus curiae Poker Players Alliance.
JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦ ¦
+-----------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction ¦168 ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦II.¦Facts ¦170 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Procedural History ¦170¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦ ¦B.¦Evidence on Poker ¦171¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Poker in the United States ¦171 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Game Play Generally ¦172 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Expert Testimony ¦173 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Defense Expert ¦173 ¦
+---+---+--+--+------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Government Expert ¦185 ¦
+---+---+--+--+------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦Defense Expert's Supplemental Report¦189 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Other Evidence ¦193 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦5.¦Conclusions of Other Courts and the States¦194 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦6.¦Compared to Video or “Joker” Poker ¦197 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C.¦Evidence at Trial ¦198¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.¦Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ¦198 ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦IV. ¦Rules of Statutory Construction ¦199 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Generally ¦199¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦ ¦B.¦Rule of Lenity ¦199¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+----------------------------------+---¦
¦V.¦Federal Gambling Laws ¦200¦
+-----------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Illegal Gambling Business Act ¦200¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Statutory Language ¦200 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Dictionary Definitions ¦202 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Common Law ¦202 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Legislative History ¦203 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Purpose of the Statute ¦203 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Definition of Gambling Generally ¦205 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦Discussion of Particular Games ¦207 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦5. ¦Commission on the Review of the National Policy Towards¦210 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gambling ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦6. ¦Subsequent Mafia Involvement in Poker Games ¦211 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B.¦Other Gambling Statutes ¦212¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Contemporary with the IGBA ¦212 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Pre–IGBA ¦213 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Transporting Gambling Materials ¦213 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Gambling Ships ¦215 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦Wire Act ¦215 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d.¦Travel Act ¦215 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Post–IGBA ¦216 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Indian Gambling Regulatory Act ¦216 ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act ¦217 ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006¦219 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VI. ¦Proof Needed That Business Engaged in “Gambling” Under the IGBA¦219 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Limited Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1955(b)(2) ¦219 ¦
+---+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Statutory Text and Legislative History are Ambiguous ¦221 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Text ¦221 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Legislative History ¦223 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Other Federal Statutes ¦224 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Rule of Lenity Weighs in Favor of the Defendant¦224 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VII.¦Poker is Not Gambling Under IGBA ¦224 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦No Controlling Federal Cases ¦225 ¦
+---+---+----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Only “Games of Chance” Are Gambling Under IGBA¦226 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Statute is Ambiguous ¦227 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Text ¦227 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Dictionary and Common Law Definitions¦227 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦Legislative History ¦227 ¦
+---+---+--+--+-------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d.¦Other Federal Statutes ¦228 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Gambling Not Limited to House–Banked Games ¦229 ¦
+----+----+---+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Gambling is Limited to Games Predominated By Chance¦229 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Poker is Predominated By Skill Rather than Chance¦231 ¦
+---+---+-------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦D. ¦Poker is Not Gambling Under IGBA ¦234 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VIII.¦Conclusion ¦235 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------+
¦Table of Figures ¦
+------------------¦
¦ ¦
+------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Fig. ¦Winning through time (April 2010 through March 2011) for the ¦ ¦
¦1: ¦top and bottom ten players in terms of total dollar amounts ¦177 ¦
¦ ¦won or lost at $5/$10 stakes ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦Fig. ¦Win rate comparison: Queen Jack suited (e.g.Q<> J ¦180 ¦
¦2: ¦<> ) ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦Fig. ¦Win ...To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Kane ex rel. United States v. Healthfirst, Inc., 11 Civ. 2325(ER).
...consults legislative history, it is mindful that this history will not necessarily "settle the dispute." United States v. Dicristina, 886 F.Supp.2d 164, 223 (E.D.N.Y.2012)rev'd on other grounds, 726 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.2013). Rather, "[a]s is often the case ‘[i]n any major piece of legislation,......
-
United States v. Dicristina, Docket No. 12–3720.
...that DiCristina's conviction must be set aside because “Texas Hold'em” poker was not covered by the IGBA. United States v. Dicristina, 886 F.Supp.2d 164 (E.D.N.Y.2012). Because we find that the plain language of the IGBA covers DiCristina's poker business, we REVERSE the judgment of acquitt......
-
United States v. Dicristina, Docket No. 12-3720
...that DiCristina's conviction must be set aside because "Texas Hold'em" poker was not covered by the IGBA. United States v. DiCristina, 886 F. Supp. 2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Because we find that the plain language of the IGBA covers DiCristina's poker business, we REVERSE the judgment of acqu......
-
United States v. Hsieh, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-00082
...New York held that poker is not gambling under the Illegal Gambling Business Act (hereinafter "IGBA"). See United States v. DiCristina, 886 F.Supp.2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). An appeal of the trial court's decision in DiCristina is currently pending before the Court of Appeals for the Second Ci......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
-
Second Circuit Clarifies That Elements Of 'Skill' Do Not Exempt Gaming From The Reach Of IGBA (18 U.S.C. § 1955)
...did not constitute "gambling" under the Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 ("IGBA"). United States v. DiCristina, 886 F.Supp.2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2012),. That ruling, which was cheered loudly by poker proponents, as well as by fantasy sports operators who highlight fantasy gaming's......
-
New York AG Doubles Down On Investigation Into Daily Fantasy Sports Websites
...have made a similar argument, with some success, seeking to avoid culpability under federal law. See United States v. Dicristina, 886 F. Supp. 2d 164, 225 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (reversed on other grounds at 726 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. The New York definition of illegal gambling is similar to that of man......