United States v. Myers
| Decision Date | 24 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 80-00249,80-00253 and 80-00291.,CR 80-00249 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Michael O. MYERS, Angelo J. Errichetti, Louis C. Johanson and Howard L. Criden, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America v. Raymond F. LEDERER, Angelo J. Errichetti, Louis C. Johanson and Howard L. Criden, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America v. Frank THOMPSON, Jr., John M. Murphy, Howard L. Criden and Joseph Silvestri, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
U. S. Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Organized Crime Strike Force by Thomas P. Puccio and Lawrence H. Sharf, Brooklyn, N. Y., for the U. S.
Hundley & Cacheris, P. C. by Plato Cacheris and Larry S. Gondelman, Washington, D. C., Jokelson & Rosen by Neil Jokelson and Rochelle Newman, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Michael O. Myers.
Brown, Brown & Furst by Raymond A. Brown and Henry F. Furst, Newark, N. J., for defendant Angelo J. Errichetti.
John J. Duffy, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Louis C. Johanson.
Melrod, Redman & Gartlan by Richard Ben-Veniste and Neil I. Levy, Washington, D. C., for defendant Howard L. Criden.
James J. Binns, Bongiovanni & Reagoso, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Raymond F. Lederer.
Stephen E. Kaufman, New York City, Arnold & Porter by Daniel A. Rezneck, Clifford D. Stromberg and Robert N. Weiner, Washington, D. C., for defendant Frank Thompson, Jr.
Tigar, Buffone & Doyle by Michael E. Tigar, Samuel J. Buffone and Linda Huber, Washington, D. C., for defendant John M. Murphy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. ABSCAM 1209
II. THE SUBJECT CASES 1212
A. U. S. v. Myers, Errichetti, Johanson and
Criden. 1212
B. U. S. v. Lederer. 1213
C. U. S. v. Thompson and Murphy. 1213
III. PRETRIAL AND POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 1214
IV. DEFENDANTS' CLAIMS 1217
A. Claims of the Myers Defendants. 1217
B. Thompson's Claims. 1218
C. Murphy's Claims. 1218
D. Lederer's Claims. 1218
E. Claims of the Government. 1219
V. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF BASIC LEGAL
CONCEPTS 1219
A. Entrapment. 1219
B. Outrageousness. 1222
VI. SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF DEFENDANTS'
CLAIMS 1224
A. General Nature of Abscam. 1224
1. Objective Entrapment and Entrapment
as a Matter of Law. 1224
2. Outrageous Government Conduct. 1225
3. Selection of Targets. 1226
4. Size of Inducements. 1227
5. Need for Investigative Tactic. 1228
6. Lack of Reliability. 1229
B. Specific Operation of Abscam. 1230
1. Inadequate Safeguards. 1230
2. Missing Tapes. 1231
3. Verbal Insulation. 1231
4. Violations of Laws, Regulations, and
Guidelines. 1232
5. "Red Flags". 1233
6. Use of Middlemen. 1235
7. Book-writing. 1237
8. The "Asylum" Scenario. 1239
C. Weinberg and his Conduct. 1239
1. Weinberg's Criminal Background. 1239
2. Weinberg's Finances. 1240
D. Miscellaneous Claims. 1241
1. FBI Interview of Lederer. 1241
2. Instructing Agents about Testimony. 1241
3. Entrapment of Lederer. 1241
4. Publicity Leaks. 1242
VII. JUDGE FULLAM'S DECISION IN U. S. v
JANNOTTI AND SCHWARTZ 1243
VIII. DEL TUFO, PLAZA AND WEIR 1245
IX. MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENTS OF ACQUITTAL
AND NEW TRIALS 1247
A. The Myers Motions. 1247
B. Murphy's Motions. 1248
C. Thompson's Motion. 1250
X. CONCLUSION 1250
I. ABSCAM
"Abscam" is the code word given by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to an undercover "sting" operation conducted out of the FBI office at Hauppauge, Long Island, New York, under the supervision of agent John Good. Abscam began after Melvin Weinberg in 1977 was convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania on his plea of guilty to fraud. In return for a sentence of probation Weinberg agreed to cooperate with the FBI in setting up an undercover operation similar to the London Investors, Ltd. "business" that Weinberg had used with remarkable success before his arrest and conviction in Pittsburgh.
For most of his life Weinberg had been a "con man" operating in the gray area between legitimate enterprise and crude criminality. For a number of years in the 1960s and early 1970s, he had been listed as an informant by the FBI and had provided his contact agent from time to time with intelligence about various known and suspected criminals and criminal activities in the New York metropolitan area and elsewhere, for which he had received in return occasional small payments of money. When he was arrested on the charge that led to his guilty plea, his informant status was cancelled, later to be reinstated after his guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the FBI.
As agent-in-charge of the FBI's Long Island office Good was, at all times, the supervising agent for Abscam. Initially, Weinberg worked directly under special agent John McCarthy who later was replaced by special agent Anthony Amoroso. Both McCarthy and Amoroso worked undercover with Weinberg.
The general pattern of the "scam" or "sting" operation reflected Weinberg's earlier theme of representing wealthy Arab interests who had large sums of cash available for business opportunities in this country. When operating outside the law in Huntington, Long Island as London Investors, Weinberg's method had been a "frontend scam" for real estate investment wherein he would promise to obtain large loans for his victims and pick-up "appraisal" or "processing" fees of several thousand dollars, but without ever producing the final loans.
Although not identical to London Investors, the initial plan developed by Weinberg and the FBI was similar. Weinberg was to present himself as a business agent for "Abdul Enterprises", an organization backed by two extremely wealthy Arab sheiks looking for American outlets for their cash. He would pass the word of big money available for deals to other con men and people who move between the legitimate and illegitimate. If criminal proposals appeared, appropriate action would be taken by the FBI.
Weinberg and the agents set up business in an office in Holbrook, Long Island. The FBI's code name "Abscam" came from the first two letters of "Abdul", combined with the word "scam".
At first Abscam's focus was upon stolen and forged securities and stolen art work. Other "investment" opportunities soon presented themselves, and quickly the investigation turned itself toward Atlantic City and the gambling casinos which were then being proposed and constructed. As word spread about Weinberg's contact with virtually inexhaustible Arab funds, Angelo Errichetti, who was both mayor of Camden, New Jersey, and a New Jersey state senator, came on the scene. Errichetti claimed to have extraordinary influence in obtaining gambling casino licenses, power over the commissioners who issued the licenses, connections with organized crime, ability to deal in narcotics, guns and counterfeit securities, as well as intimate knowledge of which members of the New Jersey legislature could be bought.
Errichetti brought to the undercover agents Howard Criden, a Philadelphia lawyer seeking to promote a gambling casino in Atlantic City. In July of 1979, Errichetti and Criden met with Weinberg and Amoroso so on the sheiks' yacht in Florida to discuss financing for the proposed casino that a client of Criden's wanted to build. In the course of the day Amoroso and Errichetti discussed the problem that might be faced by the sheiks should a revolution occur in their country and should they want to come to the United States as permanent residents. Amoroso told Errichetti that he thought cooperation of public officials would be needed and that money would be no problem.
Immediately after this conversation Errichetti and Criden formed an alliance in which they undertook to produce for Amoroso and Weinberg public officials who, in return for money, were willing to use their influence with the government on the sheiks' behalf. Meetings were arranged at various locations in New York, Philadelphia and Washington where the FBI monitored the proceedings with concealed videotape cameras and microphones. Where videotape was not feasible, audio recordings were used.
Cash payoffs were made by the undercover agents to six members of the House of Representatives, one immigration official, Mayor Errichetti, two members of the Philadelphia city council and, allegedly, to a member of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. In addition to the transactions involving cash payments to public officials, Abscam was stringing along in separate discussions a number of persons, including Senator Harrison A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Jannotti
... Page 578 ... 673 F.2d 578 ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellant in No. 81-1020, ... JANNOTTI, Harry P ... UNITED STATES of America, ... Weinberg suggested that they be introduced to Congressman Myers or Lederer, and asked Criden which one would be better ... CRIDEN: Well, I got ... ...
-
Rivera v. State
... ... Finding no error in the issues he presents, we affirm ... Appellant states the issues as follows: ... I. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the ... State, 533 P.2d 309, 314 (Wyo.1975); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, 86 A.L.R. 249 (1932) (subjective theory); United ... United States v. Myers, 527 F.Supp. 1206, 1229 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd. in part and rev'd and remanded in part on other ... ...
-
U.S. v. Myers, s. 904
... Page 823 ... 692 F.2d 823 ... 11 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 679 ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, ... Michael O. MYERS, Angelo J. Errichetti, Louis Johanson, and ... Howard L. Criden, Defendants-Appellants ... ...
-
United States v. Greenberg
... ... with the defendant is extensive”; nor is it enough that ... the government employed “feigned friendship, cash ... inducement, and coaching in how to commit the crime.” ... Id. (citing Schmidt , 105 F.3d at 91; and ... United States v. Myers , 692 F.2d 823, 837-39 (2d ... Cir. 1982)) ... The ... defendant carries the burden of proof. United States v ... Nunez-Rios , 622 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1980). That ... burden is “very heavy” because of courts' ... “well-established ... ...