United States v. Oddo

• Decision Date: 06 March 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 17757.
• Citation: 202 F. Supp. 899
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John ODDO, also known as Giovanni Oddo, John Addo, and as Johnny Bath Beach, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

202 F. Supp. 899

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John ODDO, also known as Giovanni Oddo, John Addo, and as Johnny Bath Beach, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 17757.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

March 6, 1962.

Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., Lawrence J. Galardi, Peter H. Ruvolo, Asst. U. S. Attys., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel, for plaintiff.

Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, for defendant.

BRUCHHAUSEN, Chief Judge.

In this proceeding, the plaintiff, the Government pursuant to statute seeks the cancellation of certificate of naturalization No. 3487544, issued to the defendant by this Court on December 1, 1931. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant had been arrested prior to his naturalization and that he, during the course of the naturalization proceedings, falsely denied and concealed that he had been arrested or charged with the violation of any law of the United States or of any State or of any City ordinance or traffic regulation.

The question is whether the United States of America sustained its burden in establishing that the defendant procured United States citizenship fraudulently and illegally.

The plaintiff's burden in this proceeding is a heavy one and can be sustained only if the record contains clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that fraud and illegality was committed by the defendant in procuring his citizenship. Schneiderman v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 118, 158, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525; United States v. Anastasio, 3 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 912, certiorari denied, 1956, 351 U.S. 931, 76 S. Ct. 787, 100 L.Ed. 1460.

The record shows that on October 30, 1930, the defendant John Oddo completed an instrument which was his "Application For A Certificate of Arrival and Preliminary Form For Petition For Citizenship." It was signed by him and subsequently filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It was received in evidence. Question No. 29 on that application which read, "Have you ever been arrested or charged with violation of any law of the United States, or any State, or any City ordinance or traffic regulation?" was answered in the negative by the defendant. Furthermore, on four separate occasions during the naturalization proceeding the defendant denied any prior arrests.

At the trial, testimony of arresting officers together with official documents clearly identified the defendant as the person arrested. Identification was established through live testimony, official records of the New York City Police Department and memorandums of the police officers kept in the regular course of business. Special Agent Lyndon Shaneyfeld, a handwriting expert, testified that the signature of this defendant and the one of John Oddo referred to in several of the Government's exhibits are in his opinion those of the same individual. The evidence is overwhelming that this defendant and the John Oddo who was arrested prior to December 1, 1931 are the same person. The arrests among others included vagrancy in January 1931, assault and robbery with a gun in August 1931, violation of § 722, subd. 11 of the Penal Law in October 1931, homicide in July 1930, burglary in June 1927 and vagrancy in April 1923.

The Court has carefully analyzed the entire record and finds that the Government has adequately met the heavy burden imposed upon it. It is clearly established that this defendant deliberately concealed his criminal record and thereby committed a fraud upon the Government which supports the revocation of citizenship. United States v. Accardo, D.C.N.J., 113 F.Supp. 783, affirmed per curiam, 3 Cir., 208 F.2d 632, certiorari denied, 1954, 347 U.S. 952, 74 S.Ct. 677, 98 L.Ed. 1098; Corrado v. United States, 6 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 780.

The defendant contends that the alleged concealment did not constitute "concealment of a material fact" and that he should have been permitted to explore the issue of "the totality of the circumstances" to establish that the arrest history was "of extremely slight consequences" in that the arrests were made on mere suspicion and speculation. He further claims that several of the arrests were of a picayune nature and that even if disclosed they would not have been a bar to citizenship. A like contention was clearly rejected in United States v....