US v. Conley, Crim. No. 91-178.
| Citation | 833 F. Supp. 1121 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 91-178. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. John F. "Duffy" CONLEY, William C. Curtin, Sheila F. Smith, John Francis "Jack" Conley, Thomas "Bud" McGrath, Mark A. Abbott, Thomas Rossi, William Steinhart, Roberta Fleagle, Robin Spratt, Monica C. Kail, William J. Reed, Joanne T. Smith, Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin, Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino, Sr., Christopher "Chris" Kail, Joseph A. Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas D. Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip M. "Mike" Ferrell, Anestos "Naz" Rodites, and William E. Rusin, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Frederick W. Thieman, U.S. Atty. W.D. Pa., James R. Wilson, Paul E. Skirtich, Asst. U.S. Attys., Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff.
James Wymard, William Difenderfer, Ellen Viakley, Gary Gerson, Anthony Mariani, Lee Markovitz, Ray Radakovich, Stanley Greenfield, Martha Bailor, Raymond M. Maloney, John Zagari, Foster Stewart, Edward J. Osterman, Carl M. Janavitz, Carmen A. Martucci, Joel Johnston, John Goodrich, Vincent Baginski, Samuel J. Reich, William Acker, Joseph Kanfoush, Michael Foglia, Carl Parise, Caroline Roberto and Gary B. Zimmerman, Pittsburgh, PA, for defendants.
Before the Court are Defendant Thomas "Bud" McGrath's Motion to Dismiss Count I (Document No. 388), Defendant Sheila F. Smith's Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 381), Defendant John Francis "Jack" Conley's Omnibus Pretrial Motion: Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 374, in part), Defendant Mark A. Abbott's Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Duplicitous Indictment or, in the Alternative, to Elect (Document No. 252) and Defendant Thomas "Bud" McGrath's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Elect or Force the Government to Divide Count I on the Grounds of Duplicitous Indictment (Document No. 389). Before addressing the motions, the Court will summarize the pertinent parts of the Indictment.
The Indictment contains an Introduction section before Count I begins. The introduction alleges that Duffy Conley was the owner and operator of Duffy's Vending and/or Three Rivers Coin, which had the primary purpose of facilitating an illegal gambling business based on video poker machines. The illegal gambling business was carried on by Duffy Conley "and his associates and employees."
The Introduction identifies the remaining Defendants and their roles as follows. William C. Curtin was the general manager of Duffy's Vending, assisting Duffy Conley in daily operations.
Sheila Smith was an office manager, accountant and bookkeeper for Duffy Conley, also supervising employees who placed, moved and serviced video poker machines.
Jack Conley recorded service calls from locations and facilitated the movement, repair and servicing of video poker machines.
Bud McGrath, Duffy Conley's employee, marketed and secured locations for Duffy Conley's video poker machines.
Mark Abbott, Duffy Conley's employee, marketed, moved and secured locations for Duffy Conley's video poker machines.
The Introduction alleges that certain Defendants assisted Duffy Conley by facilitating the placement and use of illegal gambling devices at various locations under their control as follows:
Thomas Rossi Carnegie American Legion
William Steinhart Carnegie American Legion
Roberta Fleagle Terry's Snack Shop
Robin Spratt Terry's Snack Shop
Monica Kail Kail's Coffee Corner
William Reed Idlewood Inn
Joanne Smith The Coffee Pot
Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin The Coffee Shop, and
Bloomfield Snack Shop
Lawrence "Neudy" Demino, Sr. The Sunny Farms Deli
William Rusin Mugshots, and
Cruisin II
The Introduction alleges that Duffy Conley employed Chris Kail, Joseph Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip "Mike" Ferrell, Anestos "Naz" Rodites and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury as collectors whose duties included going to machine locations and collecting the proceeds of video poker machine gambling.
The Introduction alleges that William Rusin was an "associate" of Duffy Conley, who entrusted Rusin with depositing proceeds of the illegal gambling business into Pittsburgh National Bank account #X-XXXXXX, the Duffy's Vending Account.
The Introduction alleges two "essential parts" of the illegal gambling business. Paragraph 8 of the Indictment alleges:
8.) The placement and use of the video poker machines as illegal gambling devices at various locations, such as taverns, sandwich shops, fraternal clubs, restaurants and convenience stores, in the Western District of Pennsylvania and other places was an essential part of the illegal gambling business that was run by JOHN F. "DUFFY" CONLEY and his associates and employees.
Indictment, ¶ 8 (Document No. 1). Paragraph 18 of the indictment alleges:
18.) It was an essential part of the illegal gambling business run by JOHN F. "DUFFY" CONLEY that the proceeds of this unlawful activity be collected from the various locations where the video poker machines were in use as illegal gambling devices. To accomplish this collection activity, Duffy's Vending and/or Three Rivers Coin maintained a group of employees whose primary job was to travel to the locations, divide the proceeds from the illegal gambling activity with a person at each location, collect the share of the proceeds owed to Duffy's Vending/Three Rivers Coin and in turn deliver that money to another employee of JOHN F. "DUFFY" CONLEY or deposit the money into a designated bank account which was ultimately controlled by JOHN F. "DUFFY" CONLEY.
Indictment, ¶ 18 (Document No. 1) (emphasis added).
Count One, the conspiracy count, is set forth in three sections: "The Conspiracy and its Objects," "Manner and Means of the Conspiracy" and "Overt Acts."
"The Conspiracy and its Objects"
Paragraph 21 of the Indictment constitutes "The Conspiracy and its Objects," stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Conley
...in this case requires "actual intent to use, or actual use of, the video poker machine as a means of gambling," United States v. Conley, 833 F.Supp. 1121, 1160 (W.D.Pa.1993) (citing Commonwealth v. Dumont, 370 Pa.Super. 155, 169-70, 536 A.2d 342, 349 (1987), alloc. denied, 519 Pa. 659, 546 ......
- Parsons v. Philadelphia Off. of Drug & Alcohol Abuse
-
Com. v. Kratsas
...machines, and the defendants were charged with federal crimes predicated upon such activities. See generally United States v. Conley, 833 F.Supp. 1121, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1993). Several of the defendants pursued a motion to dismiss based, inter alia, upon the reliance doctrine. The parties stipul......
-
U.S. v. Conley
...to launder money and conducting an illegal gambling operation were not the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy." United States v. Conley, 833 F.Supp. at 1130. The district court, however, was troubled by McGrath's "implicit" argument that "an illegal gambling business is a lesser i......