IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendants Salerno and Cafaro be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; that they be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with their respective counsel; and that, on an order of a court of the United States or on the request of an attorney for the government, the person in charge of the correction facility in which they are confined deliver them to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding. While the court may, in its discretion, order the production of witnesses, the defendant has no automatic right to their production. A principal thrust of the indictment is that the power and effectiveness of the Genovese Family to carry out its criminal activities depends on its ability and willingness to use violence and its reputation for violence. [1] The information received from both sides was by way of proffer as permitted by United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir.
Cafaro urges the court to consider releasing him on bail on the condition that he not be allowed to go to specified restaurants, social clubs, and offices, and that he surrender his passport, and not associate with other defendants.
T. 46-47. He contends that the government should be precluded from moving for detention now because it failed to move for detention then. I am going to stay there."
N.Y. June 28, 1991) Brief Fact Summary. United States v. Salerno, 794 F.2d 64, 77 (CA2 1986) (dissenting opinion).
The government proffered substantial information that Salerno's organization uses force and threats of *1372 force to maintain its illegal loansharking and gambling operations. At a pretrial detention hearing, many of the rights a defendant enjoys at a criminal trial are absent. Give me my money. ), at 10-11.
at 100-101.
The illegal businesses, in place for many years, require constant attention and protection, or they will fail.
He said: "Well, I am open already.
section 3142(f) would presently bar such an application in that case at this time.
Finding that the monetary conditions set by the magistrate assured only Colombo's presence at trial, Chief Judge Weinstein set other conditions of release designed to protect the community that are strikingly similar to those proffered by counsel for Salerno in this case. At the hearing, Salerno challenged the credibility of two named witnesses for the government, Fratianno and Lonardo. T. 101-103, 121-123. He argued that the tapes revealed at most "tough talk" and that the government had offered no proof that the violent acts discussed by Cafaro were actually carried out.
In an intercept in February, 1984, Vincent Cafaro, his son Thomas Cafaro, and a third individual are overheard discussing an Uzi machine gun in their possession at 2244 First Avenue.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority. In addition, Salerno voiced a willingness to "hit" Andrew Giordano in 1984.
Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions.
Whether that ten-day notice requirement applies at a pretrial detention hearing is open to question given the five day limitation on 18 U.S.C.
He told the guy he wants to bet from a thousand to $2500 and he thinks he ain't going to pay?
The validity of the two Manhattan surveillances has been fully litigated in other proceedings and is not objected to by either Salerno or Cafaro. There was a vote taken and, Fratianno testified that "Gigante said `I vote to hit,' Tieri said `Hit,' Salerno said `Hit,' and it went around the table in a unanimous fashion." section 3142(g), this court finds that the government has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release of these defendants will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or of the community. The Bail Reform Act is a sticky area when considering constitutionality of pre-trial detainers. There is ample proof that Salerno's organization engages other individuals to commit acts of violence.
I'll knock his f_____g brains in." Decided.
And he says: `Wait a minute, can I talk?' Both defendants moved for a 5-day continuance as provided in 18 U.S.C.
T. 44-45, In another conversation in June 1984, Vincent Cafaro tells one "Freddie," also involved in Genovese gambling operation *1370 about a numbers store Cafaro wants broken up.
Although the proffered testimony of witnesses need not be corroborated, the government proffered that it would corroborate some of Fratianno's testimony about the John Spencer Ullo murder.
Cafaro asks: "With whom?"
Although some of these murder conspiracies occurred between six and ten years ago, their seriousness and the ease with which they could be ordered weigh heavily in favor of finding that Salerno is a present danger to the community. Salerno also has the present ability to order such acts.
On the basis of the government's proffer, the magistrate ordered Colombo's detention. R. Evid. Given the clandestine nature of such organized criminal activity, the fact that many people are unaware of Salerno's behavior and role in the enterprise and thus can be expected to testify as to his lack of dangerousness is neither surprising nor useful to the court in *1374 deciding this application. (Callaghan) 1 (2d Cir. Detention, which is regulatory, in order to keep a criminal from flight, is not impermissible pre-trial punishment.
The key point is that under these conditions, Salerno, like Colombo, is not prevented from doing the very thing that makes him a danger to the community: running his organized criminal enterprise. Every f_____g shot I gave him, he had a lump like this, cuts here, cuts there; ah, I, he ain't got no face." Dr. Laragh offered no opinion on the impact of a period of detention on Salerno's medical condition. Citation 481 US 739 (1987) Argued.
T. 45, In another conversation in March 1984, Cafaro tells "Artie" about another store in violation of the two-block rule. section 3161 et seq., addressed any due process concerns on that score. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court decision. United States District Court, S.D. section 3142(f) (1) (A), "in a case ... that involves ... a crime of violence" for pretrial detention of defendants Anthony Salerno and Vincent Cafaro, who, with thirteen other defendants, are named in indictment 86 Cr. As the Second Circuit made clear in Colombo, this examination of the intricacies of release is largely academic. In a conversation in early 1984 between Cafaro and one "Pete," Cafaro states that he told Frankie Salerno to "get a hold of this kid [that owes him money] and bring him to me.
In a conversation in January 1984, Cafaro tells one "Artie," who appears to have a role in the Genovese gambling operations, of a dispute with the owner of a new competing gambling store in violation of the two-block rule, Cafaro said: "You are not opening that store." Since he was not indicted in the "Commission" case, the government could not have sought detention earlier as to Cafaro.
He cries." Salerno, 88-1464 (2d Cir. "Break it up and put locks on the door, and whoever is in there, knock their f_____g brains out." In Colombo, as in the case before the court, the government had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would assure the safety of the community.
Lonardo did not come forward as a government witness until August 1985, several months after the "Commission" indictment. Respondent, Salerno, in connection with his ties to la cosa nostra, was arrested on charges of various RICO violations. Parness is overheard on surveillance in January 1985 telling an associate that Salerno responded to Parness' inquiry "Do we kill him and get it over with?" He wants to be a wise guy.
The facts and holding in United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96 (2d Cir.
This court does not rely on the proffered testimony of either Fratianno or Lonardo alone, however, in making its finding.
If I had him, I'm going to break his mother f_____g legs." Salerno did proffer that if cross-examined, both witnesses were impeachable based upon their prior bad acts and their "deals with the government." Salerno explains to Cafaro a prior incident with the carpenters: "[W]e sent a couple of kids after the carpenters.