United States v. Dicristina, 11-CR-414

• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAWRENCE DICRISTINA, Defendant.
• Docket Number: 11-CR-414
• Decision Date: 21 August 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LAWRENCE DICRISTINA, Defendant.

11-CR-414

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date: August 21, 2012

MEMORANDUM, ORDE & JUDGMENT

Appearances:

For the government:

Office of the United States Attorney

By: Marisa M. Seifan
Nathan Daniel Reilly

For the defendant:

Kannan Sundaram
Federal Defenders

For amicus curiae Poker Players Alliance:

Kenneth M. Dreifach
ZwillGen, PLLC

By: Thomas C. Goldstein
Tejinder Singh
Goldstein & Russell, P.C.

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior United States District Judge:

Page 2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction..............................................................................................................5

II. Facts..........................................................................................................................9

A. Procedural History.................................................................................................9
B. Evidence on Poker...............................................................................................10

1. Poker in the United States...............................................................................11
2. Game Play Generally.......................................................................................11
3. Expert Testimony............................................................................................14

a. Defense Expert..................................................................14
b. Government Expert............................................................30
c. Defense Expert's Supplemental Report......................................38

4. Other Evidence................................................................................................45
5. Conclusions of Other Courts and the States....................................................47
6. Compared to Video or "Joker" Poker..............................................................52

C. Evidence at Trial.................................................................................................53

III. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29..................................................................55

IV. Rules of Statutory Construction.............................................................................56

A. Generally.............................................................................................................56
B. Rule of Lenity......................................................................................................57

V. Federal Gambling Laws.........................................................................................58

A. Illegal Gambling Business Act............................................................................58

1. Statutory Language..........................................................................................58
2. Dictionary Definitions.....................................................................................60
3. Common Law..................................................................................................62
4. Legislative History..........................................................................................62

a. Purpose of the Statute...........................................................62
b. Definition of Gambling Generally...........................................66
c. Discussion of Particular Games...............................................70

5. Commission on the Review of the National Policy Towards Gambling.........75
6. Subsequent Mafia Involvement in Poker Games............................................76

B. Other Gambling Statutes.....................................................................................78

1. Contemporary with the IGBA.........................................................................78
2. Pre-IGBA.........................................................................................................81

a. Transporting Gambling Materials.............................................81
b. Gambling Ships.................................................................84
c. Wire Act..........................................................................84
d. Travel Act........................................................................85

Page 3

3. Post-IGBA.......................................................................................................86

a. Indian Gambling Regulatory Act.............................................86
b. National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act.......................89
c. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006...................90

VI. Proof Needed That Business Engaged in "Gambling" Under the IGBA...............92

A. Limited Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1955(b)(2).....................................92
B. Statutory Text and Legislative History are Ambiguous......................................96

1. Text..................................................................................................................96
2. Legislative History..........................................................................................99
3. Other Federal Statutes...................................................................................100

C. Rule of Lenity Weighs in Favor of the Defendant............................................100

VII. Poker is Not Gambling Under IGBA...................................................................101

A. No Controlling Federal Cases...........................................................................103
B. Only "Games of Chance" Are Gambling Under IGBA....................................104

1. Statute is Ambiguous.....................................................................................106

a. Text.........................................................................................106
b. Dictionary and Common Law Definitions................................106
c. Legislative History............................................................107
d. Other Federal Statutes.........................................................108

2. Gambling Not Limited to House-Banked Games..........................................109
3. Gambling is Limited to Games Predominated By Chance............................110

C. Poker is Predominated By Skill Rather than Chance........................................112
D. Poker is Not Gambling Under IGBA................................................................119

VIII. Conclusion............................................................................................................120

Page 4

Table of Figures

Fig. 1: Winning through time (April 2010 through March 2011) for the top and bottom ten players in terms of total dollar amounts won or lost at $5/$10 stakes...................19

Fig. 2: Win rate comparison: Queen Jack suited (e.g. Q♠ J♠)...........................................23

Fig. 3: Win rate comparison: King Nine offsuit (e.g. K♠ 9♣)..........................................24

Fig. 4: Average win rate for players of different predicted skill, for $5/$10 stakes players in the prediction group.....................................................................................27

Fig. 5: Percentage of the time a higher skilled player (top 50% of skill) would predominate over a lower skilled player (bottom 50% of skill) after a given number of hands at $0.50/$1.00 stakes..................................................................................................29

Fig. 6: Percentage of the time a higher skilled player (top 50% of skill) would predominate over a lower skilled player (bottom 50% of skill) after a given number of hands at $1/$2 stakes .........................................................................................................34

Fig. 7: Simulated Cumulative Winnings of Top 10 Winners and Losers (1,000 players, 100,000 trials each)............................................................................................36

Fig. 8: Average win rates for players of different predicted skill, for $5/$10 stakes, adding rake back in player results........................................................................................40

Fig. 9: Contribution of skill to poker......................................................................45

Page 5

I. Introduction

Defendant Lawrence Dicristina is charged with operating an illegal gambling business involving poker games in violation of the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA), 18 U.S.C. § 1955, and conspiring to do so. See Second Superseding Indictment, Doc. Entry 25, Dec. 9, 2011. The type of poker alleged and proved to have been played in defendant's establishment was "Texas Hold'em," a game described in Part II(B)(1), infra. When reference is made to "poker" in this memorandum, this is the variant of pokerreferred to.

Mr. Dicristina moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that a poker room does not fall under the definition of an illegal gambling business proscribed by the federal statute because poker is predominately a...