United States v. Mennuti
Citation | 487 F. Supp. 539 |
Decision Date | 03 April 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79 CR 679.,79 CR 679. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Dominick MENNUTI et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty. by Steven G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.
Tepper & Popkin, Hicksville, N. Y., for defendant Mennuti.
David W. Clayton, Shirley, N. Y., for defendants Roy and Tricoli.
Donald H. Birnbaum, Garden City, N. Y., for defendant Cruser.
T. M. Henderson, Mineola, N. Y., for defendant Natale.
By an indictment filed December 19, 1979, defendants1 were charged with conspiracy and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i),2 which prohibits destruction (by means of an explosive) of property "used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce". At a conference held February 13, 1980, counsel for defendant Mennuti indicated that he would move to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. He thereafter filed papers on March 3, 1980 which urge that the property involved in this case was not "used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce".3 By papers filed the same day, March 3, 1980, defendant Natale joined in defendant Mennuti's motion to dismiss the indictment.4 For reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction is granted.
The Assistant United States Attorney has submitted an affidavit setting forth the government's view of the facts:
The truth of these facts is accepted for purposes of the discussion which follows.
The court is aware of no reported case in this circuit construing the jurisdictional boundaries of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). However, the issue has been the subject of three recent appellate decisions elsewhere: United States v. Sweet, 548 F.2d 198 (CA7 1977), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969, 97 S.Ct. 1653, 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977); United States v. Schwanke, 598 F.2d 575 (CA10 1979), and United States v. Grossman, 608 F.2d 534 (CA4 1979).
In Sweet, defendants were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) for destroying a competing local tavern, by means of railroad flares, bricks, and whiskey bottles filled with gasoline. Defendants argued that it was beyond the power of Congress to prohibit the acts in question.
The Sweet court began by quoting at length from the legislative history of § 844(i), including the following passage:
The court accepted the view expounded in the legislative history that the language of § 844(i) represents "the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause" and determined the extent of § 844(i) jurisdiction by analyzing leading Commerce Clause cases on the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, and the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The court then quoted from one of its own Hobbs Act decisions, United States v. DeMet, 486 F.2d 816 (CA7 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969, 94 S.Ct. 1991, 40 L.Ed.2d 558 (1974), as follows:
Because Congress has seen fit to exercise its full power under the commerce clause, extortionate conduct having an arguably de minimis effect on commerce may nevertheless be punished. United States v. Sweet, supra, 548 F.2d at 202.
The Sweet court found the DeMet "de minimis" standard to be applicable to cases under § 844(i) as well as to cases under the Hobbs Act:
Both statutes punish unlawful acts which affect commerce. The effect on commerce was the concern of DeMet. In holding as we do, we are, therefore, not stretching federal jurisdiction as defendants argue. Any stretching that there may have been in this area was long ago accomplished. Nor do we discount the wisdom of some restraint succinctly enunciated in Mr. Justice Stewart's dissent in Perez 402 U.S. 146, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971). Id.
The court held that the bombing of the tavern had on interstate commerce at least a de minimis effect sufficient to sustain jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause and § 844(i).
Rejecting this argument, the Tenth Circuit panel in Schwanke followed Sweet in giving a broad construction to § 844(i):
The most recent appellate construction of § 844(i) occurred in United States v. Grossman, supra, where defendants were indicted for conspiracy to destroy by means of an explosive a hydraulic excavator (back hoe). Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the back hoe was not being used in interstate commerce at the time it was destroyed. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, relying on the legislative history and the decisions in Sweet and Schwanke:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Giordano
..."the full jurisdictional reach" of Congress' commerce clause power that is constitutionally permissible. See United States v. Mennuti, 487 F.Supp. 539, 543 (E.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 639 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1981). In Mennuti, the Second Circuit held that Section 844(i) is a "category two" statute......
-
United States v. Belcher
...commerce are needed to make out an offense under § 844(i)? Useful analysis in reaching an answer is provided in United States v. Mennuti, 487 F.Supp. 539, 543 (E.D.N.Y.1980). Relying on Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971), the court enumerated three ca......
-
U.S. v. Mennuti
...however, because the destroyed property had never been used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce. United States v. Mennuti, 487 F.Supp. 539 (E.D.N.Y.1980). This Court affirmed. 639 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. On February 23, 1981, the government filed a second indictment, charging Mennuti......
-
United States v. Russell
...and that this factor was deemed irrelevant. With respect, this court does not find the reasoning of either the District Court (487 F.Supp. 539 at 544 n. 7) or the Court of Appeals (639 F.2d at 110) in Mennuti persuasive on this ...