This has to be the most intriguing headline that I've seen in years: RICO doesn't apply to crime-family shootings
The National Law Journal, in its September 27 issue, had the following headline:
“RICO doesn't apply to crime-family shootings”
The lead paragraph, continuing, looked like something out of a Sopranos script:
- “SHOOTINGS of two members of the Genovese family were not motivated by the shooters' desire to advance within the family, the 2d U.S. 2d Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Sept. 14, overturning convictions for murder in aid of racketeering. United States v. Bruno, nos. 03-1349 and -1351."
Here's the first paragraph of the Second Circuit's 42-page opinion:
- “These appeals arise from the November 24, 1994 shootings of Genovese Crime Family associates Sabatino Lombardi and Michael D'Urso by John Imbrieco and Anthony Bruno while the victims were playing cards at a Genovese Crime Family social club. Although Lombardi was fatally wounded, D'Urso survived and subsequently became a cooperating witness for the Government. Bruno, Imbrieco, and the ‘getaway' driver, defendant Angelo Cerasulo, later pled guilty to various crimes and agreed to cooperate with the Government. The remaining participants in the November 1994 shootings — defendants-appellants Mario Fortunato and Carmine Polito — were subsequently tried for, and convicted of, violating various federal statues relating to the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act ("VCAR"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and obstruction of justice for their roles in planning these shootings and subsequently obstructing the federal investigation of the shootings by attempting to influence the testimony of two grand jury witnesses and lying to the FBI.”
And here's the Court's conclusion:
- “In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the convictions under Counts I, II, III, V, VII, and VIII in toto, and the convictions under Count IV for obstruction-of-justice conspiracy. We vacate the convictions under Count IV for false-statement conspiracy and the convictions under Count VI in toto. And we remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.”
(The full squib in the Journal is no longer online.)
Posted by ajlevy at November 9, 2004 10:01 AM