United States v. Zirpolo, Cr. A. No. 75-67.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtCrummy, Gibbons & O'Neill, by Matthew P. Boylan, Newark, N. J., for Glenn H. Giles
Citation288 F. Supp. 993
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Walter ZIRPOLO, Robert E. Jacks, Colonial Pipeline Company, Karl T. Feldman, Glenn H. Giles, Ben D. Leuty, Rowland Tompkins Corporation, Bechtel Corporation, Gates Construction Corporation, Gates Equipment Corporation, Defendants.
Decision Date01 August 1968
Docket NumberCr. A. No. 75-67.

288 F. Supp. 993

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Walter ZIRPOLO, Robert E. Jacks, Colonial Pipeline Company, Karl T. Feldman, Glenn H. Giles, Ben D. Leuty, Rowland Tompkins Corporation, Bechtel Corporation, Gates Construction Corporation, Gates Equipment Corporation, Defendants.

Cr. A. No. 75-67.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

August 1, 1968.


288 F. Supp. 994
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
288 F. Supp. 995
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
288 F. Supp. 996
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
288 F. Supp. 997
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
288 F. Supp. 998
David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Philip T. White, Washington, D. C., Herbert J. Stern, New York City, Thomas Henderson, Alabama, Department of Justice, for the Government

Crummy, Gibbons & O'Neill, by Matthew P. Boylan, Newark, N. J., for Glenn H. Giles.

Pindar, McElroy, Connell & Foley, by Adrian M. Foley, Jr., Newark, N. J., for Karl T. Feldman.

Shanley & Fisher, by Frederick B. Lacey, Newark, N. J., for Bechtel Corporation.

Williams & Connolly, by Edward Bennett Williams, Robert L. Weinberg, Washington, D. C., for Walter Zirpolo.

Toolan, Romond & Burgess, by John E. Toolan, Arthur W. Burgess, Perth Amboy, N. J., for Robert E. Jacks.

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, by Frederick K. Becker, Perth Amboy, N. J., for Colonial Pipeline Co.

Van Riper & Belmont, by Walter D. Van Riper, Frederic C. Ritger, Jr., Newark, N. J., for Gates Construction Corp. and Gates Equipment Corp.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, by Simon Rifkind, Paul Newlon, New York City, for Ben D. Leuty.

Lawler, Sterling & Kent, by Joseph E. Brill, New York City, for Rowland Tompkins Corp.

288 F. Supp. 999

On Motions Addressed To Indictment

OPINION

WORTENDYKE, District Judge:

The Nine Count Indictment, filed in this case on February 23, 1967, has been made the target of over forty pretrial motions in behalf of the ten several defendants charged therein. By way of general introduction to the succeeding nine Counts into which the offenses charged against the defendants are divided, the Indictment alleges that, at all times mentioned therein, Walter Zirpolo was Mayor of the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey, and a voting member of the Planning Board thereof, and Robert E. Jacks was a Committeeman representing the Third Ward of the Township, a voting member of its governing body, and, subsequent to January 1, 1964, President of its Municipal Council. Jacks was also the owner of a single proprietary business in the municipality. Colonial Pipeline Company (hereinafter Colonial) was a Delaware corporation, with principal offices in Atlanta, Georgia. Karl T. Feldman was Executive Vice President, Glenn H. Giles was Manager of Construction and Ben D. Leuty was President of Colonial. Rowland Tompkins Corporation, formerly known as Rowland Tompkins & Son, Inc., was a New York Corporation, and Howard Tompkins and Ralph A. Bankes (unindicted co-conspirators) were respectively President and Vice President of that corporation. Bechtel Corporation (hereinafter Bechtel Corp.) was incorporated in the State of Delaware, but had its principal office in San Francisco, California; and Harry F. Waste, Robert L. Bowman and William L. J. Fallow (unindicted co-conspirators) were respectively Vice President and employees of Bechtel Corp. Gates Construction Corporation (hereinafter Gates Const. Corp.) and Gates Equipment Corporation (hereinafter Gates Equip. Corp.) were New Jersey corporations, and Robert S. Gates (an unindicted co-conspirator) was President of those corporations.

In Count 1 the Grand Jury charges that between January 1, 1963 and December 31, 1964 the defendants Zirpolo, Jacks, Colonial, Giles, Feldman, Leuty and Rowland Tompkins Corporation, together with Howard Tompkins and Ralph A. Bankes (who are not named as defendants in the Indictment) knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully combined and conspired with each other, and with a representative of Rowland Tompkins Corporation, to commit certain offenses against the United States of America in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 in that:

"The defendants and said co-conspirators would travel and wilfully cause others to travel in interstate commerce and * * * use and wilfully cause others to use facilities in interstate commerce, including telephones and the mails, * * * with the intent to promote, manage, establish and carry on and facilitate the promoting, managing, establishing and carrying on of an unlawful activity, * * * being the obtaining of a building permit by bribery of officials of the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey, in violation of * * * N.J. S. 2A:93-6, * * *."

It is further alleged that, as parts of said conspiracy, Colonial would request the assistance of Zirpolo in obtaining a building permit from the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey, for erection of 22 petroleum storage tanks within the Third Ward of the Port Reading Section of said Township; Zirpolo would inform Colonial that its application for the building permit would be opposed by residents of the area for which the permit was sought; and that Colonial would agree not to file its application for the building permit until after the November 5, 1963 elections, in which Zirpolo was a candidate for reelection as Mayor, for the reason that Zirpolo and Jacks had promised their constitutents that no additional petroleum tanks would be erected in that section of the municipality.

288 F. Supp. 1000
The Indictment further alleged that, as an additional part of the conspiracy complained of, Zirpolo would arrange for a meeting by Colonial's employee Stewart with Jacks at the latter's place of private business in Woodbridge, and that Jacks would inform Stewart that the then existing municipal government administration of Woodbridge could, if reelected, aid Colonial in securing its building permit after the November 5, 1963 election, without which aid Colonial's building application might be defeated because of opposition of the residents of the Port Reading Section of the municipality which had been expressed at a public hearing before the Planning Board thereof

It is further charged that it was also a part of the conspiracy that Jacks would, on behalf of himself, Zirpolo and other persons unknown to the Grand Jury, solicit from Colonial, through its employee Stewart, the sum of $50,000 as a campaign contribution in return for aiding Colonial after the November 5, 1963 elections in securing a building permit from the Township over the opposition of the objecting residents of the Port Reading Section of the municipality.

The Indictment also charged that it was a part of the conspiracy that defendants Giles, Feldman and Leuty, acting in behalf of Colonial, would agree among themselves, and with other persons to the Grand Jury unknown, to transmit the sum of $50,000 from the office of Colonial in Atlanta, Georgia, to Zirpolo and Jacks in Woodbridge, New Jersey, and to other persons to the Grand Jury unknown, for the purpose of procuring the assistance of Zirpolo and Jacks in obtaining the building permit from the Township.

It was also a part of the conspiracy that Colonial, Giles, Feldman, Leuty, Rowland Tompkins, Zirpolo and Jacks, and the unindicted co-conspirators Tompkins and Bankes, together with a representative of Rowland Tompkins, would agree among themselves, and with divers other persons to the Grand Jury unknown, to travel in interstate commerce and to use and to cause the use of facilities therein, including the mails and the telephone, for the purpose of transmitting the aforesaid $50,000 from Colonial's office in Atlanta, Georgia to the office of Rowland Tompkins in Hawthorne, New York, and thence to Zirpolo and Jacks in Woodbridge, New Jersey, in three installments; that the first payment of $20,000 would be due on or about November 6, 1963; the second payment of $15,000 would be due after a building permit had been issued to Colonial by the Township of Woodbridge, and that the third payment of $15,000 would be due after a certificate of occupancy had been issued to Colonial by the Township.

It is finally alleged that it was further a part of the conspiracy that the defendants would make and cause to be made false and fictitious documents, and would perform other acts, for the purpose of hiding and concealing, and causing to be hidden and concealed, the purpose of, and acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Following the foregoing allegations of conspiracy, the Indictment particularizes a series of nineteen (19) overt acts, commencing on or about August 16, 1963 and terminating on or about November 27, 1964.

Counts 2 through 5 set out the substantive offenses charged against the defendants in connection with the Count 1 conspiracy. Each of these substantive offenses allegedly involved travel in interstate commerce, use of interstate facilities and the transmission or attempted transmission of the sums of money referred to in the conspiracy allegation from Colonial, through various other hands, to the defendant Jacks. The substantive offenses alleged are charged as being violative of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2.

Count 6 of the Indictment charges that between January 1, 1964 and December

288 F. Supp. 1001
31, 1964, the defendants Zirpolo, Jacks, Colonial, Giles, Bechtel Corp., Gates Const. Corp., Gates Equip. Corp. and Harry F. Waste, Robert L. Bowman, William L. J. Fallow and Robert S. Gates (unindicted co-conspirators) knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully combined and conspired with each other, and with others unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit certain offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 by traveling and causing others to travel in interstate commerce, and by using and causing others to use interstate facilities, with the intent to promote the unlawful activity of obtaining easements by bribery of officials of Woodbridge Township in violation of N.J.S. 2A:93-6, N.J.S.A

The Indictment further alleges that, as parts of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • US v. Zolp, Crim. A. No. 86-299.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 30, 1987
    ...540 F.2d 1163, 1166 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099, 97 S.Ct. 1119, 51 L.Ed.2d 547 (1977); United States v. Zirpolo, 288 F.Supp. 993, 1019 659 F. Supp. 705 (D.N.J.1968), rev'd on other grounds, 450 F.2d 424 (3d Cir.1971). Accordingly, the motions for disclosure of trial witnesses......
  • United States v. Braunstein, Crim. No. 78-111.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 3, 1979
    ...454 F.2d 849 (CA-8, 1971). 15. Details of alleged conspiracy. U. S. v. McCarthy, 292 F.Supp. 937 (SD-NY, 1965); U. S. v. Zirpolo, 288 F.Supp. 993, 1022 (D.N.J., 16. Hearsay testimony presented to grand jury. Costello v. U. S., 350 U.S. 359 (1956); U. S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 6......
  • United States v. Michael, Crim. No. 77-455.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • August 17, 1978
    ...Barrow, 363 F.2d 62, 64-65 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1001, 87 S.Ct. 703, 17 L.Ed.2d 541 (1967); United States v. Zirpolo, 288 F.Supp. 993, 1008-1010 (D.N.J.1968), rev'd on other grounds, 459 F.2d 424 (3d Cir. Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 26, 27 and 28 will be denied. Th......
  • United States v. Sklaroff, No. 70-143-CR.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 11, 1971
    ...v. Battaglia, 7 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 279, cert. denied 396 U.S. 848, 90 S.Ct. 73, 24 L.Ed.2d 97; United States v. Zirpolo, D.N.J.1968, 288 F. Supp. 993; United States v. Westmoreland, S.D.Ind.1967, 41 F.R.D. 419, and Clay v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 901, vacated on other grounds,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • US v. Zolp, Crim. A. No. 86-299.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 30, 1987
    ...540 F.2d 1163, 1166 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099, 97 S.Ct. 1119, 51 L.Ed.2d 547 (1977); United States v. Zirpolo, 288 F.Supp. 993, 1019 659 F. Supp. 705 (D.N.J.1968), rev'd on other grounds, 450 F.2d 424 (3d Cir.1971). Accordingly, the motions for disclosure of trial witnesses......
  • United States v. Braunstein, Crim. No. 78-111.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 3, 1979
    ...454 F.2d 849 (CA-8, 1971). 15. Details of alleged conspiracy. U. S. v. McCarthy, 292 F.Supp. 937 (SD-NY, 1965); U. S. v. Zirpolo, 288 F.Supp. 993, 1022 (D.N.J., 16. Hearsay testimony presented to grand jury. Costello v. U. S., 350 U.S. 359 (1956); U. S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 6......
  • United States v. Michael, Crim. No. 77-455.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • August 17, 1978
    ...Barrow, 363 F.2d 62, 64-65 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1001, 87 S.Ct. 703, 17 L.Ed.2d 541 (1967); United States v. Zirpolo, 288 F.Supp. 993, 1008-1010 (D.N.J.1968), rev'd on other grounds, 459 F.2d 424 (3d Cir. Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 26, 27 and 28 will be denied. Th......
  • United States v. Sklaroff, No. 70-143-CR.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 11, 1971
    ...v. Battaglia, 7 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 279, cert. denied 396 U.S. 848, 90 S.Ct. 73, 24 L.Ed.2d 97; United States v. Zirpolo, D.N.J.1968, 288 F. Supp. 993; United States v. Westmoreland, S.D.Ind.1967, 41 F.R.D. 419, and Clay v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 901, vacated on other grounds,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT