US v. Gatto
| Decision Date | 04 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | Cr. A. No. 89-250(SSB). |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Louis GATTO, Sr. a/k/a "Streaky;" Alan Grecco a/k/a "Alan Wolshonak;" Stefano Mazzola; Louis Gatto, Jr.; Joseph Gatto; William Odierno; Peter Mylenki; and Frank Camiscioli, Jr., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael Chertoff, U.S. Atty. by James C. Patton, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., for U.S.
Miles R. Feinstein, Clifton, N.J., for defendant Louis Gatto, Sr.
Michael A. Querques, Orange, N.J. (Alan L. Zegas, West Orange, N.J., of counsel), for defendant Alan Grecco.
Peter V. Ryan, West Orange, N.J., for defendant Stefano Mazzola.
Harvey Weissbard, Weissbard & Wiewiorka, West Orange, N.J., for defendant Louis Gatto, Jr.
William J. Demarco, Wayne, N.J., for defendant Joseph Gatto.
Michael D'Alessio, Jr., West Orange, N.J., for defendant William Odierno.
David W. Fassett, Roseland, N.J., for defendant Peter Mylenki.
Adolph Galluccio, Paterson, N.J., for defendant Frank Camiscioli, Jr.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE ....................................................... 439
A. Defendant Frank Camiscioli, Jr. ........................................ 439
B. Defendant Peter Mylenki ................................................ 439
C. Defendant William Odierno .............................................. 439
D. Defendant Alan Grecco .................................................. 439
E. Defendant Joseph Gatto ................................................. 443
F. Defendant Louis Gatto Sr. .............................................. 444
G. Defendant Louis Gatto Jr. .............................................. 444
H. Defendant Stefano Mazzola .............................................. 444
II. DISCUSSION ................................................................ 445
A. Motions for Severance .................................................. 445
1. Prejudicial Joinder ................................................. 445
2. Need for Exculpatory Testimony ...................................... 451
B. Motions Attacking the Indictment ....................................... 452
1. Motion to Strike Violent Acts from Indictment ....................... 452
2. RICO's "Pattern of Racketeering" Requirement is Unconstitutionally
Vague ............................................................... 454
3. Motion to Strike Prejudicial Surplusage ............................. 455
a. Reference to the "Gatto Group" and "Genovese Crime Family" ....... 455
b. Aliases .......................................................... 457
c. "Catch-all" Phrases .............................................. 457
d. References to Acts of Violence ................................... 458
4. Motion to Dismiss Counts Charging Multiple Offenses ................. 459
5. Motion to Dismiss Count One for Failure to Specify Predicate Acts ... 459
6. Motion to Dismiss Count Two because Predicate Acts are Not Related
to Objectives of the Enterprise ..................................... 460
7. Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Violating the Statute of Limitations 461
C. Motions In Limine to Bar Introduction of Certain Evidence .............. 464
1. Admissibility of Coconspirators' Statements ......................... 464
2. Motion to Suppress Statements of Mylenki and Camiscioli ............. 465
3. Motion to Suppress Post-Hypnotic Statements of Frank Galimi ......... 465
(a) Right to Confrontation .......................................... 467
(b) Due Process Rights .............................................. 470
4. Motion to Suppress Grecco's Statements and Physical Evidence ........ 472
5. Motion for a Hearing on Admissibility of Mazzola's Convictions ...... 472
D. Motions for Evidence from the Government ................................ 474
1. Motion for Brady and Giglio Materials .............................. 474
2. Early Disclosure of Jencks Materials ................................ 475
3. Motion for Coconspirators' Statements ............................... 476
4. Motion for a Witness List ........................................... 476
5. Motion for a Bill of Particulars .................................... 476
6. Motion for the Names of Informants .................................. 478
7. Motion for Rough Notes .............................................. 478
8. Motion to Serve Subpoenas ........................................... 478
9. Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Transcripts ..................... 479
10. Motions for Disclosure of 404(b) Material of Prior Bad Acts ......... 482
E. Motions to Dismiss for Improper Governmental Conduct .................... 482
F. Motion to Transfer ...................................................... 483
III. CONCLUSION ................................................................. 483
Currently before the court are the pretrial motions of all defendants. The court heard oral argument on defendants' motions on June 8, 1990 and held two evidentiary hearings on defendant Grecco's motion to suppress statements of Frank Galimi on June 13, 1990 and July 30, 1990. The motions fall within four general categories; motions attacking the sufficiency of the indictment; motions in limine to bar introduction of certain evidence; motions for certain evidence from the government; and motions for relief based on the government's improper conduct. Additionally, each defendant has moved for severance of his trial from his codefendants' and to transfer the trial to the Newark vicinage. Many defendants raise the same issues in their briefs; this court will address them seriatim.
Camiscioli is named in Count 1 (RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), Count 3 (collection of unlawful debt), and Count 5 (numbers gambling business) of the indictment. The government contends that Camiscioli is incorporated by reference in the remaining counts of the indictment although he is not named nor specifically alleged to have a particular role in the conduct charged in Count 2 (substantive RICO count under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2), Count 4 (sports gambling business), Count 6 (use of interstate telephone in aid of racketeering), Count 7 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering), Count 8 (interstate transportation of wagering records), and Count 9 (extortionate extensions of credit). Camiscioli moves for severance of his trial because (1) he will be unduly prejudiced by harmful "spill over" evidence against other defendants such that the jury will be unable to compartmentalize the evidence effectively as it relates to different defendants; (2) Camiscioli's counsel, in rigorously defending his client, may be required to make prejudicial comments regarding other defendants' exercise of their right to silence, necessitating a separate trial from these codefendants; and (3) Camiscioli's alleged coconspirators can exculpate him in the five counts in which he is not named; therefore, he is entitled to a separate trial so he may compel his coconspirators to testify.
Mylenki also moves for severance raising substantially similar arguments. Mylenki is named in Count 1 (RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), Count 4 (sports gambling), Count 6 (use of interstate telephone facilities in aid of racketeering activities), Count 7 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering), and Count 8 (interstate transportation of wagering records) of the indictment. He is not, however, alleged to have participated in any of the eight racketeering acts that involve violence. Mylenki argues that his minuscule participation in the enterprise presents a stark contrast in the degree and kind of evidence against Mylenki as compared to his codefendants; therefore, joinder of his trial with these codefendants is unduly prejudicial.
Odierno is named in Count 1 (RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), Count 4 (sports gambling), Count 6 (use of interstate telephone facilities in aid of racketeering activities), Count 7 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering), and Count 8 (interstate transportation of wagering records) of the indictment. Odierno is not named in any of the acts of violence. He moves to sever his trial from his codefendants based on the gross disparity in the quantity and venality of the evidence; he contends that the jury can not reasonably compartmentalize the evidence that relates to separate defendants and he is, therefore, prejudiced by joinder of the trial with his codefendants.
Defendant Grecco is named in Count 1 (RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), Count 2 (substantive RICO count under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2), Count 3 (collection of unlawful debts), Count 4 (sports gambling), Count 5 (numbers gambling), Count 6 (use of interstate telephone facilities in aid of racketeering activities), Count 7 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering), and Count 8 (interstate transportation of wagering records) of the indictment. In Count 2, the indictment charges Grecco with participation in seven "racketeering acts," including:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S v. Alsugair
...material to the charges made in the indictment. See United States v. Yeaman, 987 F.Supp. 373, 376 (E.D.Pa.1997); United States v. Gatto, 746 F.Supp. 432, 455 (D.N.J.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 924 F.2d 491 (3d Cir.1991). Under the exacting standard by which they are evaluated, motions to......
-
US v. Cannistraro
...by section 1962(d)." Id. (emphasis added). The predicate act must be part of the same pattern of racketeering. United States v. Gatto, 746 F.Supp. 432, 462 (D.N.J.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 924 F.2d 491 (3d Cir.1991). The definition of a "pattern" requires at least two acts of racketeer......
-
State v. Joly
...237 Kan. 461, 483, 701 P.2d 909, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1022, 106 S.Ct. 575, 88 L.Ed.2d 558 (1985); accord United States v. Gatto, 746 F.Supp. 432, 465-66 (D.N.J.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 924 F.2d 491 (3d 6 The state argues that the record is inadequate to review this claim because the......
-
US v. Eisenberg
...v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 130, 112 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990); United States v. Gatto, 746 F.Supp. 432, 454-55 (D.N.J.1990); United States v. Gigante, 737 F.Supp. 292, 294-96 (D.N.J.1990); United States v. Lobue, 751 F.Supp. 748, 752-54 (N.D......