US v. Gallo
| Decision Date | 28 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-CR-452(S) (JBW).,86-CR-452(S) (JBW). |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph N. GALLO, Joseph Armone, Joseph Corrao, Robert DiBernardo, James Failla, Joseph Zingaro, Thomas Agro, Robert DeSimone, Jack Giordano, Angelo Ruggiero, Anthony Vitta, George Daly, Louis Giardina, Salvatore Migliorisi, Julius Miron, and Mildred Russo, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., E.D. N.Y., Edward A. McDonald, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Organized Crime Strike Force, E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y. by Douglas E. Grover, Laura A. Ward, Christopher Ulrich, for the U.S.
Dominic F. Amorosa, New York City, for defendant Joseph N. Gallo.
Alfred M. Christiansen, New York City, for defendant Joseph Armone.
LaRossa, Mitchel & Rossa, New York City by James LaRossa (Gerald L. Shargel, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Joseph Corrao.
Joel Winograd, Gustave H. Newman, New York City, for defendant James Failla.
Jay Goldberg, New York City (Judd Burstein, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Joseph Zingaro.
Louis R. Rosenthal, Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant Thomas Agro.
Charles Donovan, New York City, for defendant Robert DeSimone.
Frank T. Geoly, Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant Jack Giordano.
Hoffman, Pollok, and Gasthalter, New York City by Jeffrey Hoffman, John Pollok, for defendant Angelo Ruggiero.
Richard A. Rehbock, New York City, for defendant Anthony Vitta.
William F. Suglia, New York City, for defendant George Daly.
Condon, LaTona, Pieri & Dillon, Buffalo, N.Y. by John W. Condon, Jr., for defendant Louis Giardina.
DePetris & Meyer, New York City by David DePetris, for defendant Salvatore Migliorisi.
Andrew Lawler, New York City, for defendant Julius Miron.
Gerald B. Lefcourt, New York City (Richard W. Levitt, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Mildred Russo.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The twenty-two count indictment in this case names sixteen defendants. Count One charges that thirteen of these defendants, along with a host of unindicted cohorts, conspired to participate in the affairs of a racketeering enterprise. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (1982) ("RICO"). The remaining twenty-one counts charge fourteen of the defendants with various "substantive" offenses, all relating to the affairs of the alleged enterprise. The non-RICO counts all concern crimes also alleged as predicate acts in the RICO conspiracy count.
The alleged enterprise is the Gambino Crime Family, supposedly one of the five families of the Mafia, or "La Cosa Nostra." It is charged that from 1967 until the date of the indictment, the RICO defendants conspired to participate in the Gambino Family through a pattern of racketeering activity and the collection of unlawful debts. The Family, it is alleged, conspired to engage in at least nine "areas" of illegal activity: murder, extortion, robbery, labor racketeering, loansharking, gambling, obstruction of justice, bribery, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. The seventy-two predicate acts in the RICO conspiracy consist of forty-six separate specified alleged offenses, representing the violation of eleven different sections of the state and federal criminal codes. In addition, the RICO count charges six of the defendants with conspiracy to participate in the family through the collection of unlawful debts. Nine separate illegal collections are alleged. The RICO conspiracy consists of at least 25 separable "schemes," "operations," or courses of conduct. The remaining counts allege "substantive" violations of a majority of the offenses charged as predicate acts in Count One.
According to the indictment, the "purposes" of the Family included, but were not limited to, the following:
This indictment has been the subject of many oral opinions and five prior written opinions addressing the administration of a complex criminal case. United States v. Gallo, 671 F.Supp. 124 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (immunity from self-incrimination); United States v. Gallo, 654 F.Supp. 463 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (), vacated, No. 87-3018 (2d Cir. May 29, 1987); United States v. Gallo, 653 F.Supp. 320 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (); United States v. Gallo, 86-CR-452(S) (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 1987) () (in limine ruling on expert testimony regarding organized crime); United States v. Gallo, 86-CR-452(S) (E.D.N.Y. March 6, 1987) () (multiplicity of charges).
The complexity and labyrinthian nature of the charged conspiracy and of this case is perhaps best reflected in the attached chart, which tracks the allegations against each of the defendants.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
In addition to the three "non-RICO" defendants (DeSimone, Giordano, Migliorisi), six other unindicted coconspirators are named in the RICO count: Carlo Gambino, Paul Castellano, Ariello Dellacroce, Thomas Bilotti, "John Doe" (John Gotti), and Frank Mastricova. With the exception of Gotti, these coconspirators are deceased. Gambino is alleged to have been the "boss" of the Family until his death in 1976. He was succeeded by Castellano. The indictment describes the structure of the enterprise. The "boss" is responsible both for setting policy and for resolving disputes among family members and other criminal organizations. In return, he receives a share of the "earnings" of each Family "crew." The boss is assisted by an "underboss." The underboss is second-in-command and also receives earnings from the various crews. The "consiglieri," or "counsel," serves as advisor to the boss, underboss, and crew "capos." He also receives a share of the earnings from certain crews. The day-to-day operations of the Family are conducted by groups known as "crews." Each crew is comprised of "made members" of the Family (i.e., official initiates), who are also known as "soldiers" of that crew. The soldiers are in turn assisted by "associates," or "connected" people. These associates are not official members of the Family. Each crew is headed by a "caporegime" ("capo"), or "captain." The capo is responsible for organizing, managing, and supervising the activities of his crew and is responsible for providing support and protection to soldiers and associates. In return, the capo receives a share of all the earnings of each of those soldiers and associates. The capo reports to, and is supervised by, the boss and underboss. There are numerous crews in the Gambino Family.
This indictment concerns the members of at least seven of those crews. At the time of most of the activity specified in the indictment, Castellano was alleged to be the boss, with Dellacroce as underboss and Gallo as consiglieri. Armone, Bilotti, Corrao, DiBernardo, Failla, Gotti, and Zingaro were alleged capos. Soldiers included Agro, DeSimone, Giordano, Mastricova, Ruggiero and Vitta. Daly, Giardina, Migliorisi, Miron and Russo are alleged to have been associates of the Family. The government's version of this part of the Family's structure and hierarchy is reflected in the attached Family "tree." Defendants in this case are indicated by capitals.
Defendant Robert DiBernardo cannot be located by the government. The FBI assumes that he is dead. Defendant Thomas Agro pleaded guilty from his hospital bed, was released from custody, and died of cancer before being sentenced. Fourteen defendants thus remained to be dealt with. Of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Martinez
... ... United States v. Gallo , 668 F. Supp. 736, 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.). The United States v. Gray court explained that, in United States v. Gallo , [a]fter weighing the potential prejudice against defendants, the court decided that the dispositive factor counseling severance was judicial efficiency. [ ... ...
-
U.S. v. Casamento
... ... Cohen, 145 F.2d 82, 91 (2d Cir.1944) (such trials can allow witnesses to avoid the burden of successive trials), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 799, 65 S.Ct. 553, 89 L.Ed. 637 (1945), however, they also can have disadvantages, see United States v. Gallo, 668 F.Supp. 736, 754-56 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (such trials can place great burdens on jurors, defendants, counsel, and trial judges); see generally Federal Bar Council Committee on Second Circuit Courts, A Proposal Concerning Problems Created By Extremely Long Criminal Trials (1989). We recognize the ... ...
-
U.S. v. Bin Laden
... ... 17. See generally United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (noting challenges addressed by trial judge in managing trial of complex terrorism conspiracy); United States v. Gallo, 668 F.Supp. 736, 754-56 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (noting many difficulties that arise from long criminal trials) ... 18. Al-`Owhali also claims that the trial will undoubtedly violate due process because of the inflammatory nature of the charges and the impossibility of adequate investigations and ... ...
-
US v. Gatto
... ... United States v. Gallo, 668 F.Supp. 736, 749 (E.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 863 F.2d 185 (2d Cir.1988). See also United States v. Sandini, 888 F.2d 300, 306 (3d Cir.1989) (severance not required where defendant offered conclusory allegations that his defense was "truly antagonistic" and "mutually exclusive" to ... ...