from Hollywoodmafia by Jack Whalen
This is for those that want to know.
I know some people would like me to write about California. The truth is there is not much going on. There are a few guys running around, but beyond an isolated crime what can they do? They are 2700 miles from NY, with no pool of guys to pull from.
The guys in NY cannot help them. The same goes with Chicago. So the few guys who run around the OC and do some stock deals, some bookmaking are out here alone.
They operate on a false reputation, if someone calls their bluff nothing happens.
People ask about Rusty Shakes Milano's son in law. The guy was part of the LA Family. Shakes made him.
He left years ago, to get back where he had support. that way he could make cash.
So today I have some new stuff on Allie Boi and Jokey Deross, two guys who will be taking it for a long time to come. I hope they stay fit.
There is some stuff on the quest for the death penalty.
No new news on Ori " Noodle" Spado.
I am the attorney for defendant Thomas Gioei in connection with the above
matter. I am writing in conjunction with Carl J. Herman, Esq., whom the Court
appointed to serve as learned counsel for Mr. Gioeli. This letter addresses Mr. Gioeli’s
position regarding outstanding motions of co-defendants Dino Calabro and Dino Saracino
for a bill of particulars and raising issues with respect to the government’s Brady
obligations during the death penalty review process. For the reasons stated below, Mr.
Gioeli joins in those motions and asks that the Court grant the defendants relief.
By their motions, defendants do not seek “far flung” discovery regarding the
charges in the indictment, see United States v. Boyd, 931 F.Supp.2d 968, 973 (D.R.I.
1996). Rather, defendants seek only two limited pieces of information. Specifically, the
defendants seek with respect to each murder count: (1) whether an individual defendant is
alleged to have acted as a principal or accomplice; and (2) whether the alleged victim was
engaged in criminal activity at the time of his death. With respect to Mr. Gioeli, the
defendant seeks this information with respect to the following counts: Count One –
Racketeering Act Two (Murder of Frank Marasa) ¶¶ 25-27; Count One – Racketeering
Act Six (Murder/Murder Conspiracy of John Minerva) ¶¶ 33-35; Count One –
Racketeering Act Seven (Murder of Michael Imbregamo) ¶ 36; Count One –
Racketeering Act Thirteen (Murder/Murder Conspiracy of Richard Greaves) ¶¶ 50-52;
Count One – Racketeering Act Sixteen (Murder/Murder Conspiracy of William “Wild
Bill” Cutolo) ¶¶ 58-60; Count Two – Murder In-Aid-Of Racketeering (Murder of Richard
Greaves) ¶¶ 101-104; and Count Four – Murder In-Aid-Of Racketeering (Murder of
William “Wild Bill” Cutolo) ¶¶ 107-108;
The death penalty review process under the United States Department of Justice
Death Penalty Review Protocols (“DOJ Death Penalty Protocols”) offer defense counsel
a “reasonable opportunity” to provide information to be considered by the local United
States Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General’s Capital Case Unit. See United States
Attorney’s Manual § 9-10.000 at D (defense counsel is entitled “to present to the
committee…the reasons why the death penalty should not be sought.”) Courts have
recognized that review process is not a “critical stage” in the defense because it is not a
segment of the process “where the results might well settle the accused’s fate or reduce
the trial itself to a mere formality.” See United States v. Torres Gomez, 62 F.Supp.2d
402, 404 (D.P.R. 1999) quoting Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170 (1985).
Notwithstanding, in order to have meaningful input into the death penalty review process,
defendant counsel must know whether the government contends if a defendant acted as
principal or accomplice, and whether the alleged victim was engaged in criminal conduct
at the time of his death. This information is so basic to adequately representing a
defendant in a death penalty-eligible case that its absence raises issues of fundamental
fairness and adequate representation under the Sixth Amendment. U.S. Const. 6th
To the extent that co-defendants Calabro and Saracino have previously addressed
whether the government should provide this information pursuant to Brady v. Maryand,
Mr. Gioeli joins in those arguments.
On a more basic level, however, defendants are entitled, at the very least, to
knows whether they acted as principal or accomplice with respect to the individual
murders. Defendants are entitled to this information by way of a bill of particulars
separate and apart from any Brady issues, which defendant does not waive. As the Court
is well aware, defendants have the right to move pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) for a
bill of particulars requiring the government to set forth “the specific allegations of the
offense charged.” United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 110 (2nd Cir. 1997). The
purpose of a bill of particulars is to permit a defendant “to identify with sufficient
particularity the nature of the charge against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare
for trial [and] to prevent surprise….” United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2nd
Cir. 1987). The decision to grant a motion for a bill of particulars lies with the sound
discretion of the district court. See United States v. Panza, 750 F.2d 1141, 1148 (2nd Cir.
1984). While a bill of particulars “is not intended, as such, as a means of learning the
government's evidence and theories,” if necessary to give the defendant enough
information about the charge to prepare his defense, “it will be required even if the effect
is disclosure of evidence or of theories.” 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure §
129 (1982); see also United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 665 (“defendant was entitled
to be otherwise apprised of the conduct that he was engaged to have undertaken”).
The Court should require the government to disclose in this case whether
defendants acted as principal or accomplice in the charged murders. This information is
critical during the death penalty review process to make an adequate presentation on the
client’s behalf. Whether a defendant was an actual “shooter” or participated in a minor
capacity are important mitigation issues that must be addressed to have any meaningful
role under the DOJ Death Penalty Protocols. Without this information, the government
places defense counsel in the awkward position of not knowing whether the government
contends that his client was the primary actor in an alleged murder. This situation makes
any presentation to the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, and more importantly, to the
Attorney General’s Capital Case Unit, fraught with peril. Indeed, defense counsel runs
the risk of completely undermining his credibility before the Committee if he does not
know how the panel views his client’s role in a particular homicide. An error on this
point could result in the Committee discounting any other representations on mitigation.
Thus, any “reasonable opportunity” to participate in the process by defense counsel could
be rendered meaningless.
Since the indictment in the present case does not provide any information on
whether a defendant acted as principal or accomplice, the Court should require the
government to disclose this information. Accordingly, the Court should grant defendants
this requested relief.
We want to thank the Court for its continued consideration of this matter.
ALLIE BOI and JOKEYS big lie..
As this Court found in its November 24 Order, the
government established the defendants’ guilt of Cutolo’s murder
beyond a reasonable doubt by, among other things, presenting
substantial evidence that the defendants ordered Cutolo’s murder.
Further, the government established that the defendants had a
strong motive to kill Cutolo, had the opportunity to do so using
individuals aligned with Persico and DeRoss in the Colombo crime
family, and took numerous actions after Cutolo’s murder
establishing their guilt, including admitting their
participation, intimidating witnesses, and immediately trying to
take control of money and other assets controlled by Cutolo. The
defendants principally claimed at trial that Cutolo was alive.
Well after the verdict, the government has gained
further knowledge of the details of how the defendants
orchestrated Cutolo’s murder. The information currently in the
government’s possession can be summarized generally as follows:
• The defendants ordered Cutolo’s murder.
• On those orders, various individuals aligned with
Persico and DeRoss, including, among others, Colombo
crime family members Vincent “Chickie” DiMartino,
Thomas Gioeli, Dino Calabro and Dino Saracino, then
plotted to murder Cutolo.
• Cutolo was in fact murdered on the defendants’ order,
by various individuals aligned with Persico and DeRoss.
• After the murder was carried out, Cutolo was buried in
Farmingdale, New York.
This information is completely consistent with the government’s
theory of liability at trial, which this Court has previously
described. See 11/24/08 Memorandum and Order at 25 (“The
Government established the Defendants’ guilt at trial based on,
inter alia, evidence that (1) the Defendants ordered Cutolo’s
murder; and (2) the individual who carried out Cutolo’s murder
was aligned with the faction of the crime family controlled by
Persico and DeRoss.”).
The government possesses no information that the
defendants did not order Cutolo’s murder.
I. Persico’s Motion for Reconsideration is Without Merit
A. Standard of Decision
First, as a factual matter, that claim is incorrect.
The information now in the government’s possession directly
implicates DiMartino in plotting to kill Cutolo.
The defendant claims that the fact that the government
has not newly charged DiMartino with the Cutolo murder must be an
indication that he was not a participant (Ltr. at 2) is illogical
and incorrect. DiMartino is already serving 25 years’
imprisonment for attempting to murder Joseph Campanella. In any
case, the fact is that the government currently possesses
information that DiMartino conspired to kill Cutolo on orders
from Persico and DeRoss.1
Second, as a legal matter, whether or not DiMartino was
involved in plotting to kill Cutolo (he was), or whether or not
DiMartino was the shooter, is immaterial. As the Court has
already found, what mattered to the defendants’ conviction was
that they ordered Cutolo’s murder, and the government
“present[ed] extensive evidence” establishing this. 11/24/08
Memorandum and Order at 24; see also id. at 25 (“The Government
presented more than sufficient evidence to establish that the
Defendants ordered Cutolo, Sr.’s death.”). The details of how
that order was carried out were not material to the defendants’
Goodbye you fools.
These guys are nothing but cowards that get others to do crimes that they cannot commit. They gain and everyone else gets nothing. Look at the lawyers they have. then look at the lawyers everyone else has.
Sonny, Tommy Bitch Tits, all the gang have public defenders. yeah these guys are ballers. That is why they have such great lawyers working to get them off.
Feb 17, 2009 5:08 PM