United States v. Known
Decision Date | 15 December 2015 |
Docket Number | 14-CR-556 (WFK) (VMS) |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GENNARO BRUNO also known as "Jerry," Defendant. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Gennaro Bruno (the "Defendant") moves, in an omnibus motion, for a bill of particulars, to compel discovery, to dismiss several counts of the indictment1 and to inspect the grand jury minutes. See generally 8/12/2015 Def.'s Mot. for Bill of Particulars, Mot. for Discovery, Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Mot. to Dismiss on Speedy Trial, and Mot. to Inspect Grand Jury Minutes (hereinafter "Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 53. The Honorable William F. Kuntz, II, referred the motions to this Court for a report and recommendation. 8/18/2015 Order, ECF No. 55. Oral argument was held before this Court. See generally 10/22/2015 Tr. of Oral Arg. (hereinafter "10/22/2015 Tr."), ECF No. 72. At oral argument, Defendant withdrew his motion for discovery. 10/22/2015 Minute Entry, ECF No. 69. For the reasons stated herein, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Judge deny Defendant's remaining pretrialmotions in their entirety.
On October 16, 2014, a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York returned a fifteen-count indictment charging Defendant with:
Various counts of obstruction of justice in or about and between 2009 and October 2014, including:
10/16/2014 Indictment (hereinafter "EDNY Indictment" or the "Indictment") ¶¶ 16-60, ECF No. 1.
The racketeering and racketeering conspiracy charges allege that Defendant is a member of the enterprise, the "Corozzo Faction within the Gambino organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra." EDNY Indictment ¶ 1. The enterprise operated within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere. Id. The Indictment describes in detail the highly organized hierarchy of the Gambino Crime Family. The head of the family was known as the "boss," who was assisted by an "underboss" (or "consigliere") that administered the supervision, support, protection and discipline of the lower-ranking members of the crime family. Id. ¶ 4. Beneath this administrative level were numerous "crews" (also known as "regimes" or "decinas") headed by "captains" (also known as "skippers," "caporegimes," or "capodecinas"). Id. ¶ 5. The crews were comprised of "soldiers" and "associates." Id. Each "captain was responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the crew with support and protection." Id. In return, captains received a portion of their crews' earnings. Id. The enterprise consisted of multiple associates, members and crews of the Gambino family who maintained an alliance with Joseph Corrozzo ("Mr. Corrozzo") and other associates, members and crews under Corozzo's oversight and control. Id. ¶ 6.
As described in the EDNY Indictment, associates were sometimes recruited from loosely structured crews of young men which often operated under the control or with the acquiescence of the Gambino Crime Family, but which did not constitute lower levels of authority within the Gambino Crime Family and were outside the Gambino Crime Family hierarchy and structure. Id. ¶ 8. One of these crews, referred to as the "Young Guns" or "Liberty Posse," operated in Ozone Park, Queens, and was controlled by Ronald Trucchio, who was at various times anassociate, soldier and captain of the Gambino Crime Family. Id. ¶ 9. Yet, the Young Guns functioned self-sufficiently and without oversight. Id. ¶ 8. The Young Guns crew was not associated with the enterprise and no longer exists. Id. ¶ 9.
The purpose of the enterprise was to generate money via various criminal activities, including drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, illegal gambling and loansharking. Id. ¶ 11. The enterprise "also furthered [its] activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder." Id. Defendant was a Young Guns member in the 1990s and then became an associate after serving a prison term from 1997 to 2000. Id. ¶ 15.
The racketeering conspiracy charge in Count One and racketeering charge in Count Two allege that Defendant participated in a pattern of racketeering in furtherance of the enterprise's affairs. Id. ¶ 18. Specifically, Counts One and Two charge that Defendant, together with others, conspired to commit or actually committed the following acts:
As stated above, Defendant filed an omnibus motion on August 12, 2015. Def.'s Mot. In his motion, Defendant moves:
The Government opposes the omnibus motion for the reasons discussed below. See generally Gov't's Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. (hereinafter "Gov't's Opp'n"), ECF No. 59. As previously stated, at oral argument, Defendant withdrew his motion for Government disclosureof the recordings it intends to use at trial because the Government agreed to turn over transcripts of the recordings as they are available and have been reviewed. 10/22/15 Tr. at 19-20.
As two of Defendant's motions to dismiss involve an indictment of Defendant presented by, and plea agreement by Defendant entered into with, the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"), the Court first discusses the SDFL Indictment and plea agreement before addressing the merits of the parties' arguments.
In 2004, Defendant was charged by the USAO for the SDFL with racketeering conspiracy in a one-count indictment. SDFL Third Superseding Indictment, Ex. 3 to Def.'s Mot. (hereinafter "SDFL Indictment"). He ultimately pled guilty to the count of racketeering conspiracy in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d). SDFL Plea Agreement, Ex. 4 to Def.'s Mot.
In the SDFL Indictment, the charged enterprise in the racketeering conspiracy was a crew "operating under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial