Rotolo has been convicted on charges of extortion, fraudulent activities, assault and public disorder offenses. Despite observations by its agents, witnesses who appeared before the Commission repeatedly denied that Rotolo ran the business.

A number of them admitted during interviews that Rotolo was in fact running the bar but gave different stories during testimony in private hearings before the Commission. But when subpoenaed to testify, Isabella denied that Rotolo was her boss or that he paid her. Joseph Fucci, a local building contractor, similarly contradicted himself. Fucci told Agent Cuzzupe that no payment schedule was set up because he and Rotolo are friends. I did a mistake. Are you saying now that Mr.

All the time Ciani gave me the money. Ciani gave you the money? Ciani gave me the money. During his private testimony, however, Abbato contradicted what hehad said in the interview:. When I — when — when Mr. Grant [Cuzzupe] called me up and told me that he wanted to meet with me, I asked him if there was anything that he might want to know from me, should I take any information with me and he said no, so I went cold.

But in his testimony Guarini denied that Rotolo hired him and insisted instead that it was Ciani. Well, I was called down to look at it and I gave the price— well, Tony was down there when I went down there.

I think he was there. Interestingly, Guarini had previously completed work at the My Way Lounge and the Body Shop, establishments in which Rotolo also held undisclosed interests. Rotolo and his first partner, Michael Della Rosa, purchased the property and Della Rosa formed the Midel Corporation, which then applied for the liquor license in Jersey City ABC authorities, however, determined that Della Rosa was fronting for Rotolo who, as the landlord, would have derived benefit from the bar through a lease.

The Midel application for licensure was denied by Jersey City. Della Rosa has since been convicted on gambling charges. When John Ciani appeared in a private hearing before the Commission, he too invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Rotolo was surveilled by Commission agents on numerous occasions acting in a supervisory capacity. On at least four occasions in October,Rotolo was observed performing managerial functions such as unloading equipment, working in the kitchen, moving liquor, acting like a host with patrons, discussing renovations of the facility, using keys to open doors and assisting in deliveries.

After the agents began issuing subpoenas for records and individuals to testify, however, Rotolo was not seen on the premises again. In fact, Rotolo had to be located elsewhere in order to serve him with a subpoena. In conversation with Commission agents acting in an undercover capacity, Ciani indicated that he was now the sole owner, having recently bought out his partners.

Real estate records corroborate that Rotolo divested himself of his interest in the property in August, The license remains in place to this day. The situation has been allowed to occur in part because Medford officials do not require background investigations of licensees.

The township police chief told Commission agents that any background investigations are done by the municipal clerk, with the ultimate responsibility lying with the State ABC.

He said his department has never done a criminal history check or a fingerprint check on applicants for licensure. Sparacio and several of his subordinates have been observed together often at the Medford Village Resort and Country Club by law enforcement officers from various agencies.

The continual presence of Sparacio and the others is alone a violation of ABC regulations. Sparacio has defied the exclusionary order. Blase Salvatore, however, remains a member despite his criminal record. Salvatore was also employed as manager at the club while on a state prison work release program in Such employment was in violation of ABC regulations in that Salvatore did not possess a Rehabilitation Permit from the ABC, which is required whenever an employee has a criminal record.

Sparacio has seven gambling convictions between andtwo of them with Thomas Lauria. Salvatore has four bookmaking convictions between and Gambling operative Nicholas Caputi, Sr. Salvatore and his codefendants Caputi, Sparacio, Steven Argentina, Lauria and James Anderson were all ultimately convicted.

Another item confiscated from Salvatore at the time of his arrest was his phone directory. Commission Special Agent Michael Hoey testified at the public hearing as to the significance of its contents:. I met Blase and Shotsie around I was — I was in my early twenties and I had just started into the bookmaking business.

They were the first bookmakers that I worked for and that was the sports business. I worked for them for a couple of years and then my business just — I used to turn half of the booking to them. My business grew and I pulled it away and started taking care of it myself. There was a — I might have the wrong place. It was either 4th or 5th and Pine. Around the same time. I had met him but never did business with him. A first cousin of Nicodemo Scarfo, Piccolo was elevated by Scarfo to consigliere.

InPiccolo assumed a leadership position as acting boss when Scarfo was convicted on federal RICO charges. It is known that Piccolo was president of the now defunct Baron Maintenance Services, Inc. In addition to his earlier conviction for commercial bribery, Piccolo was arrested during [New Jersey State Police] Operation Broadsword and charged with numerous crimes, including illegal gambling.

He — I knew why. Because it was his cousin. You know, he was the boss. Piccolo acquired an ownership interest in Medford Village in when his company, Baron Maintenance Services, Inc.

The interest was never hidden but was always listed in publicly available corporate papers. On January 7,Alfred Squitire, one of 15 original partners in the club, transferred 84 shares of his stock to Baron Maintenance. In December,almost 12 years later, Piccolo signed documents transferring his stock from Baron Maintenance to Michael Procacci of Cherry Hill, the club president. Piccolo signed many other documents during his year association with the club.

When Alfred Squitire became one of the original partners of Medford Village Resort and Country Club, was he representing your interest? On January 7, Squitire transferred his shares in Medford Village Resort and Country Club Incorporated to Baron Maintenance Services. Was that transfer done at your direction? The SCI is in possession of a number of corporate documents executed by the partners of Medford Village Resort and Country Club Incorporated.

I show you one such document which is Exhibit 21 —.

Let the record show that Exhibit 21 is being shown to the witness and to his counsel, Mr. On December 4,the stock held by Baron Maintenance Services was sold to Michael Procacci. Why was that done? Below is a typed receipt indicating that the check was, in fact, received and your signature appears under that. Is that, in fact, your signature as president of Baron Maintenance?

The country club is owned and operated by two for-profit business entities known as Medford Village Resort and Country Club, Inc. A third entity, purportedly non-profit and known simply as Medford Village Resort and Country Club, holds the club liquor license and assists in the operation of the country club. The country club is, in fact, operated by the for-profit corporation.

Stocks - Bloomberg

During the public hearing, Commission Special Agent Hoey was asked to elaborate on the ABC regulation regarding club licenses:. A club liquor license is one which can be issued by any township or city and state.

This is the kind of liquor license that Medford Village Country Club [has]. Now, also there are other types of liquor licenses which are basically referred to as retail liquor licenses and these, of course, are worth money when bought or sold…. The way it was utilized, yes…. According to ABC regulations, club liquor licenses have to be issued to non-profit organizations … basically for VFWs, Knights of Columbus, that type of charitable organization or recreational entity. In fact, as a result of our investigation and an investigation in some cases that paralleled our investigation which was done by the … State ABC Enforcement Bureau, we were able to determine that that club liquor license at Medford Village was, in fact, a sham in almost every respect.

With … Medford Village there were six directors who were all original investors in the club…. Anthony Piccolo, the La Cosa Nostra member, had a stock interest…. And there is currently pending an ABCenforcement action against the licensee.

The ABC charges center on the non-profit status of the entity that holds the liquor license. The matter is scheduled to be heard in December by an administrative law judge. When asked for an explanation as to why this type of license was obtained, Procacci, a successful and wealthy businessman, placed the responsibility on his lawyers and his own lack of knowledge on the subject.

He also said that the only reason a club license was sought was because a plenary retail license was not available. In terms of the operational practices of the business entities, little distinction is made between the non-profit and the profit making entities. Moreover, club membership must be 60 or more persons and each member should be allowed to vote on management issues.

With respect to the non-profit corporation, has the general membership of the country club ever been involved in voting for the trustees of the non-profit corporation? They never had any rights to get involved there.

The managing partners, one of which was Baron Maintenance, make all of the decisions and Procacci seems to possess absolute power, as his private session testimony reflects:.

When it comes to memberships, I want to bring this here out, they have a Board of Governors that run the club itself.

If somebody gets out of order, it comes to the Board. If anybody is — for instance, if a new member comes up to sign up for a membership, we have a membership committee.

They — and they bring it to the Board of Governors, and they accept them or reject them. Well, how do I relate to them? The manager reports to me. He sits in on the — with them as manager, and sometimes, they ask him to leave while they talk about their people and their club. But anything that came out at the Board of Governors went to the manager, and the manager reported to me. And if I thought that something would be detrimental to the club, I would object, and I would go there and talk to them.

Sure, I had veto power. First of all, the name would never be — never be handed into the membership committee. But I never had that problem either. During the public hearing, Commissioner Evenchick asked Special Agent Hoey to elaborate on the roots of the problems with the licensure of the Medford Village Resort and Country Club:.

Agent Hoey, I think I understood you to say that in the early s and over the years until recently, you determined or your investigation disclosed that the local authorities have done virtually nothing by way of checking the backgrounds of individuals associated with this club. That is correct, yes. Can you clarify for us what you mean when you refer to local authorities?

Well, according to — my understanding is according to ABC guidelines, rules and regulations that the local townships have the ability to or should conduct background investigations. Now, it can be done by the township fathers, it can be done by the police department at the instruction of the township fathers, but somebody is obligated to do some kind of background investigation ….

In the case of the country club, it was never done in Medford. Sometimes townships do as little as a criminal history check which is very minimal. Did anyone ask any of the Township authorities why they did nothing? Were you satisfied with that explanation, sir? Desmond, Chief, Appeals Div.

The defendant in this criminal proceeding has asked that we enter a stay or enjoin his sentencing proceedings in the district court pending appeal or consideration of a petition for mandamus. We do not read Gannett Co. The defendant was convicted on June 20,of violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.

After reviewing the report, which contained references to other criminal activity, the defense requested a hearing at which it proposed to refute some of those allegations.

The trial and conviction were in the United States District Court for New Jersey sitting in Newark, New Jersey, and it was there that the sentencing hearing was scheduled for July 17, At that time, the defendant was under indictment for numerous other offenses, and was scheduled for trial in the Southern District of New York in October Many of the same newspapers and television stations that cover the district court in Newark also service New York City where the court for the Southern District of New York conducts its trials.

The defendant timely asked that the public and press be excluded from the evidentiary hearing on the ground that prejudicial matters inadmissible in the New York trial would be divulged. See Croskey Street Concerned Citizens v. Addressing the first of these factors we must weigh not only the likelihood of success on the merits but also whether the defendant will be able to satisfy the threshold requirements of jurisdiction.

Defendant asserts in his brief that the order of the district court is reviewable at this stage and that as an alternative, jurisdiction exists for mandamus. Both the appeal and the proposed petition for mandamus, however, pose problems in the circumstances present here.

Defendant concedes that the order is not final within the usual meaning of 28 U. Beneficial Finance Industrial Loan Corp. The collateral order doctrine has been applied, though sparingly, in the criminal context. As the Court observed in United States v. United States, U. Assuming, Arguendo, that the first two requirements pose no barrier, we are not persuaded that the third has been hurdled in the case Sub judice. The defendant argues that he has a right to have the public excluded from the evidentiary hearing based on the holding in Gannett Co.

But in Gannett, the Court stated explicitly that a defendant has no constitutional right to compel a secret trial, — U. Moreover, it is significant that there the prosecutor agreed to bar the press, and the trial judge believed that an open hearing would pose a reasonable probability of prejudice to the defendant.

Another distinguishing feature is that the hearing at issue here is posttrial, rather than pretrial as in Gannett. Here, by contrast, since defendant has already been convicted, the concern of the Gannett Court that the trial not be prejudiced by pretrial disclosures is not a consideration. Accordingly, we do not agree that the Gannett case supports the premise that the defendant acting alone has a constitutional right to exclude the public from a sentencing hearing.

Of course, defendant does have a right to a fair trial in the Southern District of New York. However, if publicity generated by the trial or evidentiary hearing in Newark affects the New York trial, he may then take appropriate steps there, the usual remedies of voir dire, change of venue, continuance, and the like being available in that forum. To that extent, therefore, the right to a fair trial in New York would not be irreparably lost by denying immediate review here.

We are mindful that the final judgment rule is to be broadly construed and that the Cohen exception must be kept within narrow bounds if the rule is to retain its vitality. See In re Grand Jury Investigation of Associated Milk Producers, Inc. We conclude that the defendant has failed to make a strong showing that he is likely to prevail on his contention that the order is appealable, that he will be successful on the merits, or that without the stay he will be irreparably injured.

The same result may be accomplished by simply postponing the sentencing until after the pending trial in New York is concluded. The defendant has already offered to remain in custody and waive any right he may have to prompt sentencing. Although there is some indication in the record that continuance of the hearing may be a hardship for one or more witnesses, it would seem that taking depositions, either in conventional form or by videotape, would satisfactorily resolve that problem. Defendant also asserts that the publicity generated might be harmful should a retrial be ordered in the New Jersey case.

He will have the opportunity to raise that contention in a direct appeal from the convictions already entered. The collateral order doctrine, therefore, is not applicable to that argument since no right will be lost by awaiting final judgment. As the Supreme Court noted in its discussion of the subject in Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co. Courts of appeals have broad authority on direct appeal but a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.

We perceive no strong likelihood that the defendant would be successful in receiving a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to order a closed hearing in the circumstances of this case. Because we conclude that the defendant has failed to make the necessary showing to justify either the issuance of a stay or an injunction pending appeal, his motion will be denied. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

On August 25, — approximately twenty years ago — a jury convicted Petitioner of racketeering, three counts of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering, murder, and conducting an illegal gambling operation. The convictions for conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering involved the planned murders of John Gotti and Gene Gotti, and the murder of Irwin Schiff in August United States, F.

Petitioner eventually filed a motion to vacate his conviction, pursuant to Sectionon April 30, Petitioner filed two motions seeking leave from the Third Circuit to file a second or successive Section motion. The first of these motions was filed on April 21, and denied on June 20, The investigation sought to discover the veracity of an alleged plot by Manna, and possibly other inmates, to murder former United States District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, former United States Attorney Samuel Alito, and former Assistant United States Attorney Michael Chertoff.

Petitioner offers his twice-filed copies of the above-mentioned FBI Memos to support this allegation. Petitioner alleges he was unaware of both the murder plot and the fact that information regarding the plot was given to Judge Barry.

Petitioner claims that he first discovered this information on January 2, The FBI Memos focus on Manna as the source of the alleged threats. The memo later states: On January 11,Petitioner filed a pro se Motion for Relief, pursuant to FED. On February 4,the Government answered.

Petitioner seeks a hearing to consider his claims, under Rules 60 b 3 and 60 b 6that he was denied due process, both during his sentencing and when his petition to vacate his sentence, pursuant to Sectionwas dismissed. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: To the extent Petitioner challenges the procedures of both his sentencing and his Section proceedings, this Court shall interpret this motion under Rule 60 b.

See In re Olabode, F. Nemours Foundation, F. However, Rule 60 b limits the time within which the motion must be filed. Government of Virgin Islands, F. Attorney General of U. Department of Veterans Affairs, U. Here, Petitioner does not argue excusable neglect; thus, he is entitled to no equitable tolling.

In the instant case, Petitioner filed his Rule 60 b motion nearly twenty years after his sentencing and twelve years following the denial of his Section petition. In an apparent effort to circumvent the untimeliness of this motion, Petitioner claims he did not discover the evidence regarding the alleged ex-parte communications between the FBI and Judge Barry until January 2, This claim is not supported by the record.

In MayPetitioner sought leave from the Third Circuit to file a second Section petition. This information leads this Court to conclude that Petitioner knew of the information contained within the FBI Memos long before he submitted this Rule 60 b motion.

Since Petitioner alleges that Judge Barry learned of the murder plot before his sentencing, he believes the procedures for both that proceeding and the review of his Section petition were tainted. While the FBI Memos Petitioner provides here do discuss a murder plot against Judge Barry, they address a plot orchestrated by Manna. The only discussion of Petitioner in the memoranda is as a co-defendant at trial and an individual whose communications should be monitored based solely on his connection to Manna.

B Docket Entry No. The record fails to support any reasonable inference that Judge Barry was told about Petitioner being involved in the plot. Any number of notifications could have been appropriate, including a warning of generalized threats from prisoners.

She sentenced him on September 26, See United States v. Although he is generally unknown outside the Delaware Valley area, Blavat has wide contacts in the entertainment world. Because of these contacts, as well as his friends in organized crime, he can open many doors in various walks of life. He also appears at other clubs in southern New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The financial arrangements for his appearances at the three other New Jersey clubs violated ABC regulations because he received all or a portion of cover charges in cash as well as a percentage of liquor sales.

Such funds were not recorded on the books of the licensees either as income or payments. Blavat has allowed Memories to be used as a regular meeting place and hangout for the Scarfo family, contrary to ABC regulations.

DelGiorno testified that because Memories was the only place Testa visited regularly and appeared to be relaxed, he asked Scarfo if he could commit the murder there. But he said Scarfo told him not to do it. I go in there all the time. I meet guys in there. Dintino, a nationally recognized expert on organized crime, said of Blavat:.

Blavat was an associate to, and a chauffeur for, the late Philadelphia crime boss Angelo Bruno. He has also been identified as an associate to Nicodemo Scarfo. Cuzzupe cited in detail his long association with organized crime figures, which has been extensively documented by surveillances of numerous law enforcement agencies over many years.

And when he appeared under subpoena at the public hearing, Blavat refused to answer all questions. We all hanged out there in the summer. We always went there, everybody, you know, everybody that had a place down the shore or everybody came down the shore.

Blavat was a friend of — started out from what I know of him — I met him when I was a kid. Later on, yeah, not at the — well he — he made — Blavat made friends as they came along. Like I said I — I know of it going back to when Angelo was living. He used to hang out with Angelo. Did Blavat assist Nicky Scarfo by acting as a front for him in the purchase of a yacht? Well, from the — from the understanding that I got from Scarfo, he just put the — went out and bought the boat and Scarfo gave him whatever down money that he needed and I think there was a mortgage on — mortgage of or a month and Jerry would write a check every month and pay that and Scarfo would reimburse him the money.

This was explained to me by Scarfo and his attorney, Bob Simone, that Scarfo had purchased this home in Fort Lauderdale and the way that he did it was to put so much money down and then form a corporation that was supposed to be leasing this home to individuals as a vacation spot, and he had around three or four guys — that he had them sign a lease for like three or four months a year.

One was Bobby Stone and two other guys. I think he had four of them that were doing three months apiece. Did Blavat ever actually visit the Fort Lauderdale home to make it appear as though he was renting it? He came in, said hello to everybody.

He went over — he went, sat down with Scarfo for a little bit talking to him. You mean to tell me this guy flew to Florida to eat a meatball sandwich? Celebrity Showcase is the corporation that books Jerry Blavat, and is paid, and then Celebrity Showcase pays Jerry Blavat a salary for his performance. But the benefits from these arrangements go beyond the simple collection of a paycheck.

To a large degree, he has been able to violate ABC regulations with impunity. Ephraim from through That revenue was not tallied in a cash register; nor was there any accounting for the amount of cash being collected.

This money was turned over directly to Blavat, a practice that also violates ABC regulations. When Schmidt interviewed Blavat and Degenhardt, he asked what was done with these funds. They both stated that the money collected as a cover charge was to go to Jerry Blavat, the entire amount.

Blavat stated that he used that money to purchase advertising time from two Philadelphia radio stations and that was also what Bill Degenhardt stated that was told to him by Blavat. Do ABC regulations allow for money to be taken on licensed premises and not be processed through the licensee?

Blavat and Degenhardt admitted to Inspector Schmidt that they had agreed that Blavat would receive a percentage of liquor sales on nights that he appeared at the lounge, in violation of ABC regulations. It was over and above any reasonable salary paid to an entertainer. Blavat charges an admission fee at the various lounges where he appeared in New Jersey and he also had a cover charge at Memories. Did he ever tell you what he did with that money? Oh, one time I had — let me put it in perspective.

He sometimes or most of the time gives the door so much money, a little bit of money, and the door has this fee and that he only reported a very small portion of that — of that door at these. Did he tell you what he did with a salary that he would receive from one of the lounges when he received part by check and part by cash?

He just was there — Sam Scafidi was an old guy that had — just an old nice guy that hung around. I got guys that come to the clubs and hang and follow Jerry Blavat for 25 years that just like to be a part of that, and Sam was one of those guys that was — he was like a second father.

One Top Taxpayer Moved, and New Jersey Shuddered - The New York Times

Really, just watched out for my interest to make sure that nobody was doing anything, cheating or anything like that. Celebrity Showcase, they would have that. It was that simple. I think he was a doorman more or less, you know, collecting money at the door and,you know — they had a lot of kids that went into that bar, you know. Agent Cuzzupe, are you aware of whether any governmental agencies of our State have made efforts to revoke Mr. There has not been an effort at the local level.

There have been investigations of Mr. Blavat, however, continues to own and operate Memories in Margate and perform his oldies show throughout the region. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MUSTO, Frank Scarafile, John J. The trial of this matter lasted approximately five months. The complex, count indictment, charged defendants with conspiracy to violate the RICO statute, tax fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.

Throughout the trial, and despite the unanticipated length of the proceedings, the jury listened attentively to witnesses and displayed unflagging interest in the proceedings. On March 22,the jury began its deliberations. Two days later, the court received a message from the Marshals that one of the jurors, Mrs. This message was communicated to counsel by the court:. Gentlemen, as I informed you off the record I have received a message from the Marshals that Mrs.

Steidl is very upset. She had been crying, she claims that she has never been away from her husband before, and the general indication that I have received is that she has some doubts as to her ability to continue to serve and to participate in the deliberations. Under the circumstances it is my suggestion that I meet with her informally, off the record, if I have your consent to do that, first of all to find out what the problem is, report back to you as to what it is that she tells me and then if necessary we will put something on the record, if you think that is appropriate, but my feeling is that I will do much better with her if I can discuss the matter with her without a Court Reporter being present and see what the problem is, but I only will do that if you all consent.

My suggestion is we start informally before we put ourselves in the position from where there is no retreat. All counsel agreed that the court should informally interview Mrs.

A message requesting the interview was then sent to the jury with instructions that further deliberations were to cease until notification to resume was given by the court. Steidl was held in chambers and lasted for only a few minutes. The substance of the conversation was immediately reported to counsel:. First of all, I want you to know that when I began talking to her I instructed explicitly to her that she was not to reveal to me anything that had taken place during the deliberations.

She indicated to me that the first night she was very upset because she was away from her husband. Last night she indicated that in addition she was hysterical because of the pressure of the deliberations. Apparently the foreperson had insisted that the jurors support their views and indicated that they should do so before going to dinner last night.

Apparently that direction upset her very much. She said that that pressure is making her sick and she does not think that she can continue to serve as a juror. After the court related the details of its discussion with Mrs. Steidl to counsel, there was argument over what should be done next. There were suggestions to interview the foreman, to reinstruct the jurors that each of them must vote their own conscience, to allow Mrs.

Steidl to meet with her husband, and to interview Mrs. Steidl again to see whether the proposed meeting with her husband would ameliorate the problems which she was having. The court held another informal meeting with Mrs. Steidl at the urging of and with the consent of counsel. The meeting lasted for only a few minutes and its details were immediately disclosed to counsel in open court:.

Gentlemen, I had a second conversation with Mrs. The situation has deteriorated rather than improved. I told her that we would make arrangements to bring her husband down if she wanted, that I would bring the foreperson in and have a chat with him as to his functions and I read to her the portion of the charge which I said I would consider reading to the jury as a whole and to the foreman, and she said to me that she does not wish to continue under any circumstances.

An attorney for the defense then asked the court for time to caucus with co-counsel. The court, granting the request, stated: One is to go with a jury of eleven, one is to make use of one of the four alternates who are here, and the third I do not wish to speak aloud.

After counsel met, they jointly proposed that the court should excuse Mrs. Steidl and the foreman and substitute two of the alternate jurors.

Alternatively, they asked for a hour adjournment to determine whether their clients were financially able to move for a mistrial. Argument ensued, with the prosecution vigorously opposing a dismissal of the foreman:. No factual record to justifying going into the jury, plucking out Number 1 the foreman and say you are dismissed, no basis for it.

With respect to Juror Number 9 Mrs. Steidlthere are in essence two choices, one to tell her to go back and deliberate, or two, substitute another juror in unless defense are willing to have deliberations continue with eleven jurors. Other counsel also urged that a hearing should be held to determine whether the pressure Mrs. Steidl was feeling was due to improper conduct on the part of the foreman. Counsel also advised the court that their willingness to excuse Mrs. Steidl and substitute an alternate was conditioned upon excusing the foreman as well.

Counsel were then requested by the court to decide whether they would want Mrs. Steidl excused should the request to dismiss the foreman be denied:. Gentlemen, I think I have fairly conveyed to you Mrs. Plaisted that I would like to know whether under those circumstances from each defendant, whether they want Mrs.

Steidl excused, if they do want her excused I would like to know whether or not they want an alternate substituted, or whether they move for a mistrial. As of this moment I am rejecting the condition that Mr. I will not accept that as a condition for excusing Mrs. I think we have to deal with her separately and resolve it. Counsel responded by again renewing their request for a hearing to determine whether Mrs. Steidl was being improperly pressured by other jurors.

The attorneys were divided, however, on whether she should be excused, and those that favored excusing her refused to agree to substitute an alternate without first having a hearing on the possibility of juror misconduct. None of the attorneys expressed a willingness to proceed with a jury of eleven.

Because counsel were unable to agree upon how to proceed, the court suggested that they meet informally in chambers:. I will suggest that we will be more productive if we meet in my chambers. The meeting was held but there was still no agreement over how to proceed. However, it was evident to the court that defendants would not consent to a jury of eleven or the substitution of an alternate.

Therefore, the 24option trading binary options strategies and tactics download free of Mrs. Steidl as a juror was the only realistic alternative absent a mistrial. The court, understanding that it had the continuing authorization of counsel, decided to make one final effort to determine if Mrs. Steidl would and could continue to serve. After lunch, the binary option trading definition reported as follows:.

I indicated to her that it might be necessary for her to continue to serve as a juror and she indicated to me that she would be willing to do so. I also indicated to her that I would bring the jury down and give them some further instructions. Therefore, I think I have a very simple alternative to give to all counsel and eliminate the flee in live market market nj stock variables that we have had so far.

Counsel, and I guess this is primarily directed at counsel for defendants, but I will certainly hear from the Government as well, should indicate to me whether they are willing at this stage to consent to substitute an alternate for Mrs.

Steidl knowing that it is my present inclination that if they are not willing then I am going to ask her to continue to serve. So I think that simplifies the choice for counsel. No objection was made to this meeting.

In fact, the court was complimented for its decision to ask Mrs. Steidl to continue serving as a juror:. The court asked us to use some ingenuity and it looks like the ingenuity came from the bench. After a brief recess, court resumed. The court asked Mr. Hayden, the attorney for defendant Powers, whether forex currency pairs had been reached upon how to proceed.

Hayden revealed that counsel were divided:. There is not an entire consensus. I think there are two views which I will articulate for at least five or six of the counsel. Your Honor, on the basis of what the court indicated its conversation was with Mrs. Steidl and the fact that she now feels that she could be a fair and impartial juror, she would not be intimidated, we would have-I will withdraw my motion to dismiss her as a juror subject to the Court giving a strong charge to the jury as to the right of each juror to listen and discuss with each other but to vote their conscience, and more importantly, subject to the Court giving a strong charge, in effect telling the foreman that he is not in any preferred status to anybody else, he must listen and have some respect for the dignity of each juror, he has no right to brow-beat, intimidate, harass anybody else, and among other things, that he cannot require people to marshal the evidence, in effect give a summation, because again the constitutional right to trial by jury is a right to a jury from a cross-section of the community, which means some people are more articulate than others, some people.

Two other defense attorneys, Mr. Baime, agreed with Mr. Flood, attorney for defendant Genovese, took another position:. I have some problem with her remaining as a juror but this in no way means I would consent to there being an alternate juror. First, I would move for a mistrial at this time based on two stock exchange symbol for royal mail Silber later stated that if the court were unwilling to grant his motion for a mistrial, then he would rather have Mrs.

Steidl continue as a juror than have her replaced by an alternate. Ford concurred with this position. McAlevy, attorney for defendant Scarafile, differed with the positions taken by other defense counsel:. Anolik, attorney for defendant Musto, agreed that a voir dire examination should be conducted of Mrs. Steidl but he did not state that he would move for a mistrial in the absence of such an interview. The court, confronted with the inconsistent positions of the defense, requested the government compania teletrade forex trading state its position:.

Initially this morning before we did research over the lunch hour we had been opposed to the removal of Mrs. We opposed meetings between the foreman and your Honor and further meetings between your Honor and Mrs.

Case law is fairly clear about that. It is fairly clear about inquiries, it is clear that one removes a juror only because of outside influence or because a juror can no longer continue to deliberate because of health or other such reasons that prevent the juror from continuing to deliberate.

Under the circumstances that we are now presented where the defense has asked your Honor to meet with Mrs. Steidl but after having done that, after having pushed your Honor into that position now some of defense counsel are taking the position Mrs. Steidl should not be reinserted, she should be stricken, we are in the position where the Government in order-we have no choice but if some counsel object to her being placed back in the jury box we must also object.

We are concerned about that issue on appeal. And so under those circumstances our position is she should not be placed back in the jury box, but rather, an alternate should be placed in. The Government is getting whip-sawed by the different tactical decisions of counsel.

They have now, by trying to induce these inquiries and asking for more and more inquiries into the deliberative process, have put the Court in an untenable position, have put the Government in an untenable position.

The Third Circuit has specifically allowed, and we found the case over the lunch hour as well, Mr. Friedman did, allowed with the consent of counsel the insertion of an alternate juror. Gentlemen, under these circumstances if any of the defendants are of the view that Mrs. Tactics ogre making money should be removed there is a way to accomplish that without in any way prejudicing the rights of any of the defendants, namely, by making use of the four alternates who are still here, who have been under my instructions and have continued to be under my instructions not to discuss the case with anyone, not to read anything in the newspapers or watch anything on radio or television.

So the defendants stock market data for metastock the opportunity if they want to avail the new adventures of pippi longstocking movie of it by making use of those alternates.

I am satisfied based upon my conversation with Mrs. Steidl, although she is upset, that that upset is such that she still feels that she can return to the jury and act as a fair and impartial juror. I have no intention of asking her what has been going on in the jury deliberations, but I think it is appropriate for me to bring her out here and ask her in your presence whether based upon all of the circumstances she feels she can resume her role as a juror and act as a forex dan judi and impartial juror.

The court granted Mr. Now, I have asked counsel to come and meet with you and with me in chambers because we are interested in knowing whether you can continue to operate and function as a juror in this case. One question I want you to answer is do you feel despite anything that has only buyers stocks nse so far that you can continue to be an effective and fair and impartial juror in this case and decide the case in accordance with my instructions?

It is an emotional experience for everybody. Court resumed shortly after the voir dire examination was completed. Each of the defendants confirmed that they had waived their right to be present during the interview with Mrs. Bisnis forex halal apa haram jury was then brought into the courtroom and the following instruction was given with the consent and agreement of all counsel:.

Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for keeping you waiting but during the course of the trial I know you have become used to that. I must say to all of you that in a case of this length, size and complexity, one would expect that there would be lively and even heated discussion over the evidence and the issues presented. I wish to remind you and emphasize that each juror is free to express or not to express him or herself on any of the issues that were presented.

That is the very nature of the process. This is a serious matter and serious discussion will undoubtedly affect each and every one of you, possibly even emotionally. As you undoubtedly know by now I met with Mrs. Steidl this morning and the only instruction that I gave to her is the previous instruction which I gave each of you which I will now repeat, since it seems to bear on whatever the present situation is.

With respect to your verdict, the verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict in this matter it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reach agreement if you can do so without doing violence to your individual judgments. Each of you must decide the case for him or herself but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence in the case with your fellow jurors.

In the course of your deliberations do not hesitate to reconsider your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous, but do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

Remember at all times that you are not partisans, you are Judges, the Judges of the facts, and your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in this case. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would very much appreciate it if you would resume your deliberations in the proper spirit with these instructions in mind.

I repeat again that the Court and counsel and the parties certainly expect that there will be extensive discussions and that those discussions should be in the appropriate spirit in accordance with these instructions. The jury resumed its deliberations at 2: Early the next morning, the jury returned to the courthouse to continue its deliberations.

The deliberations continued through the day. I advised both defendants and the Government informally of this note and suggested that everyone discuss it, and I am open to suggestions.

The Government objects and asks that the jury be sent back to deliberate further. Obviously this case took a great deal of forex 60/40. This jury has deliberated a very short time if you take out all of the recesses and time for testimony and the other things and we would ask that the jury be sent back to deliberate. Argument ensued over the wording of the instruction.

After amendments to the language were agreed upon by all counsel, the jury was brought into the courtroom and the following was read to them:. I wish to remind you that this case has been conducted over a very lengthy period. So far as your deliberations are concerned, you deliberated a half day on Monday and approximately a half day on Tuesday because of the reading of the testimony of Mr. That means since you have commenced your deliberations there have been only a total of between sixteen to eighteen hours, approximately two days.

The jury is excused. The jury continued its kursy walut online forex money until 6: Deliberations resumed at 9: The jury had breakfast in the morning, a snack of coffee and pastries, lunch in the afternoon, and coffee in the late afternoon. Throughout this time the jury sent no messages to the court. After discussions with counsel, the court responded to the inquiry and ordered the jury to return to the jury room to continue deliberations.

All eight defendants were found guilty of the crimes alleged in the first count of the indictment. As the verdict on the first count was read, there was a tremendous outpouring of emotion. Musto, the wife of one of the defendants, rose to her feet and broke into tears. As the foreman continued to read the verdict, she clutched at her husband over the railing that divides the courtroom and continued to weep.

Several of the female jurors, observing Mrs. The prosecutor asked that the proceedings be delayed until Mrs. Musto had a chance to regain her composure. Several relatives attempted to remove Mrs. Musto from the courtroom but she reacted by tightening her embrace of her husband and by continuing to cry hysterically.

The jury found that the defendants were guilty as charged in 36 counts of the indictment. Defendants were acquitted of 9 counts against them. One count had been voluntarily dismissed earlier. On every count of the indictment where the jury returned a verdict of guilty, all defendants charged in that count were found guilty.

Similarly, on every count where the jury acquitted one defendant, all defendants charged in that count were acquitted. After the foreman completed delivering the lengthy verdict, counsel for the defense moved to have the jury polled.

No request was made at that time for a poll on individual counts. The court granted their request:. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there has been a request investment options 401k poll the jurors individually.

You have heard the foreman announce the unanimous jury verdict. Meisner will call out your name. At this point, pandemonium broke out in the courtroom. Many supporters of the defendants who were present leapt to their feet screaming. People pounded on the benches of the courtroom and some of the defense attorneys pounded on their desks and shouted. The prosecutor then rose to his feet and the following exchange took place. Your Honor, I would ask that the courtroom be cleared and I would ask in light of the answer that the jury be sent back to the jury room.

I would ask that the proper remedy at this point is for the jury to return to the jury room and resume deliberations. Ladies and gentlemen, it is apparent from the answer that the verdict of the jury is not unanimous. Under the circumstances I request that the jury resume their deliberations. The jury then filed out of the courtroom. Hayden made the following observation:. Judge, it is my understanding from the spectators that one of the jurors wanted to speak to you on the way out.

Let me say something. Hayden mentioned this, and I want to put it on the record immediately. As the jurors were filing out, Mrs. Melnick turned to me and said she wanted to say something. She obviously wishes to communicate with the Court in some way. I look to you for assistance. Immediately, because if there is a coercion situation, and if we have a dictatorial foreperson, et cetera, I do not want there to be too much time elapsed before this women gets to the Court.

I think the Court might be proper not to take it then. Other counsel agreed with Mr. Hayden that the court should speak with Mrs. The prosecution disagreed and then the following discussion took place:. The first thing to do, unless there is some objection, is a note should go up to Mrs. Melnick asking her if she wants to speak to me. I am not going to insist upon it unless she wants to do it. I think the remedy in these situations when you have a juror who says at the poll that it is not her verdict is that they resume deliberations to see if they can arrive at a unanimous verdict.

Gentlemen, here is the note I propose sending. Counsel agreed that the note should be sent asking whether Mrs. Melnick wished to speak to the court or whether the jury wished to continue its deliberations. As the conversation, which had lasted about ten minutes, was concluding, the court market vectors gold miners etf stocks another note from the jury:.

The note from the jury reads as follows: Counsel then went back into the courtroom and the proceedings resumed:. Ladies and gentlemen, in view of the substantial outburst as a result of the verdict and what occurred I am directing that the courtroom be cleared of all persons other than counsel, defendants themselves, and the press.

Everyone else is directed to leave immediately. The court noted that it was going to repoll the jury beginning from the first juror. No other objection was made to the repolling. No request was made to have the verdict announced. The jury was then brought into the courtroom. Twenty-five minutes had elapsed from the time that the jury was asked to continue deliberating and the time that they returned to the courtroom with the second verdict. The court addressed the jury:.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have received a note with your request that the polling be continued. I again remind you that each of you will be asked whether you agree or disagree with the verdict as announced by your foreperson. Judgment shall be entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury and the verdict sheet shall be filed with the Clerk.

Defense counsel then made application that the jury not be released until motions were made. The court agreed and the jury was excused temporarily. After the jury left the courtroom, Mr. Sokol could reflect it on the written record other than by description, but Juror Number Four, Mrs.

I think the record should also reflect that Mrs. Hayden then requested that the court interview Mrs. With respect to an interview of a juror about deliberations, it is totally inappropriate. We should not and do not delve into the deliberations of the jury. With respect to Mr. Melnick, there is no question she is emotionally involved; however, I disagree with his physical observations.

The members of the U. There is no question that she is emotionally upset, as any juror would be under these kinds of circumstances. What they are seeking to do is lay a record to attempt to impeach a verdict.

These cases are very clear, one does not do that. It is certainly not something that need be done at this moment, if it is to be done at all, and I would resist and at least ask your Honor to give us the opportunity to provide your Honor the case law that I speak of because it is there, it is clear, and the defense has nothing to rely on.

To my knowledge they have not graphics in binary options charts any dinner.

They have been deprived of food new concepts in technical trading systems by welles wilder free download the lunchtime.

After listening to the arguments of counsel, the court offered its own observations and findings:. Gentlemen, first of all I think that the court should make some observations and some findings insofar as this jury is concerned. When the jury first came out and began announcing its verdict there was tremendous emotional outbreak, particularly and certainly understandably from Mrs.

Musto, and while the jury was being polled she was visibly crying and holding on to her husband and standing. Although I took a moment in an effort to see if she could regain her composure and have somebody assist her she refused, again understandably, to leave the side of her husband.

When we reached Mrs. As she was going out she attempted to say something to the Court. We then, before there was any further communication with the jury, received a request that the polling be resumed. It was resumed, and all of the jurors indicated that they were unanimous. If there was any time or circumstance under which Mrs. Melnick felt that she still wished to speak to the Court she certainly could have said it at that precise moment. Insofar as the jury is es mini futures trading hours, that certainly includes Mrs.

Melnick, you have to be inhuman not to react emotionally to the rendering of the verdict in this courtroom, particularly to the reaction of Mrs. This has been a difficult case and difficult deliberations. When the Court resumed after there was a request to continue forex azhar idrus polling, the Court resumed the polling.

I observed what Mr. Silber, there is only one possible explanation that Mrs. The court then stated:. I will do this for you. I have ruled on it, we will follow Mr. I would like the inquiry to be really whether she intended to convey to the Court that indeed she did agree with the verdict. That is so beyond what I am permitted to do, I have to deny the request.

The prosecutor urged the court to excuse the jury and then continue argument. Anolik for the first time requested that the jury be repolled on every count of the indictment.

Stating that the jury had already been polled, the prosecutor objected. The court then ordered that the jury be brought back into the courtroom. After the jury was seated, the court delivered its final instructions. Anolik then stated again that he would like to have the jury repolled. The prosecutor objected and the objection was sustained by the court. The jury was then discharged.

The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to all persons the right to a fair and impartial trial by jury. From the start of this trial to its conclusion this court has labored hard to ensure that this fundamental guarantee was faithfully implemented. It was, of course, impossible to have foreseen the problems that arose with the jury.

Nevertheless, at that critical stage of the trial as in all other stages of the trial, the court sought guidance from counsel to ensure that its decisions were proper and in accordance with the law. In this motion for a new trial or for an acquittal, counsel renew some of their earlier objections. These objections are properly made and their merits will be dealt with in this opinion.

Each will be considered separately. Counsel argue that they never consented to have the court meet for a third time with the juror and urge that this third meeting was unauthorized. Yet when the record is read in context, the meeting was approved and applauded by counsel for defendants. The court had first learned that Mrs.

Steidl was emotionally upset on the morning of March After advising counsel of the problem, the court suggested that it meet privately with the juror. The court specifically noted, however, that a private meeting would be conducted only if all counsel consented. The court also noted that if counsel wanted a court reporter present at the meeting it would agree to the request. Frankly, I have no trouble saying that you should be able to do it whichever way you want, with a reporter, without a reporter.

None of counsel objected to the court meeting alone with Mrs. Steidl or without a court reporter. The court held an informal meeting with the juror and immediately reported the details of the discussion to counsel.

Counsel were advised that Mrs. Steidl was upset because she was away from her husband and because of the pressure of the deliberations. Steidl was necessary and 1954 and stock market volatility noted that the conversation did not have to be on the record.

After this second meeting was held, the court again immediately reported the details of the conversation to counsel. The court advised the attorneys that Mrs. Defense counsel then jointly proposed that the court dismiss both Mrs. This proposal, conditioning Mrs. Vigorous argument ensued, with counsel unable to agree upon any course of action which would avoid a mistrial. During the course of a conference in chambers with counsel, it was apparent to the court that counsel would not agree to substitute an alternate or proceed with a jury of eleven.

Steidl remained, a mistrial seemed imminent. Accordingly, after reflecting on the matter, the court determined to make a final effort with Mrs. The court conducted the interview informally because of the inhibiting effect that the presence of a court reporter might have on the juror. This understanding was confirmed when the details of the meeting were reported to counsel. After the matthias weigel forex trading reported the details of its last informal meeting with Mrs.

Steidl to counsel, a voir dire examination of the juror was conducted. All counsel and the court reporter were present for the proceedings. The individual defendants, however, agreed to waive their right to be present.

In response to limited questioning by the court, Mrs. Steidl gave her assurance that she could continue to serve as an effective, fair and impartial juror. The hearing was then concluded and proceedings resumed in the courtroom. Steidl resumed her place on the jury. The jurors were then summoned to the courtroom, where they received an instruction prepared with the consent and agreement of all counsel.

Then, referring to its meeting with Mrs. Steidl, the court fully informed the jury of what was said to her:. The jurors were instructed to be impartial, to consult with one another, to reconsider their own views if erroneous but not to surrender their honest convictions, and to seek the truth from the evidence.

The jury was then excused to continue deliberations. Steidl was unauthorized and constitutes grounds for a new trial or an acquittal. Defendants waived any objection to the meeting; indeed they approved it and readily accepted its benefits. The situation here is closely analogous to that in United States v.

In Jones, counsel had agreed to allow the court to conduct in camera examinations of two jurors with only the court reporter present. After defendants were convicted, counsel urged that the examinations were improper.

Since, in conducting the in camera examinations, the trial judge was merely adopting a procedure suggested to him by counsel live foreign currency rates in pakistan the defendants, it hardly requires discussion that the defendants will not be heard to complain that examinations were conducted in camera without the presence of their counsel.

Even had counsel for the defendants not suggested and, by implication at least, agreed to the procedure followed by the trial court, the very fact that counsel for the defendants knew of the procedure, and neither before nor after the examinations were completed, objected would amount under the authorities to a waiver of any claim of error in regard to the in camera examination in the absence of a showing of prejudice. United States Gypsum Co.

The situation here differs from that in Gypsum in three fundamental respects. First, here the court made a full report to counsel of its meetings with Mrs.

Steidl immediately after the meetings were held. Second, a voir dire examination of Mrs. Steidl was conducted with counsel and the court reporter present, at which time the juror assured all that she could and would continue to serve fairly and impartially. Because the facts of this case are materially different from those of Gypsum, the principle of that case does not mandate the relief sought by the defendants.

Five minutes later, the jury returned its verdict of guilty. Again, the situation 10 min binary options trading course strategy this case is significantly different. Moreover, in this case, because the verdict was not delivered until two days after the clarifying instruction was given, any suggestion of coercion is negated. Steidl but had explicitly approved of them.

If counsel had any objections to the procedure employed by the court, they had every opportunity to state them. No objections were ever voiced. Instead, counsel lauded the court for its efforts to resolve a critical and extremely delicate situation.

In a situation where the potential for prejudice was far greater than it was here, the Third Circuit also found a waiver, United States v. In Grosso, the jury sent the judge a note indicating their inability to reach a verdict. Without notice to defendant or his counsel, the judge replied that the jury should continue their deliberations. See also United States v. The court also finds that even if there were no waiver, prejudice did not result from the conversation.

Steidl, it was cured by both the voir dire examination of the juror, at which she indicated her continued impartiality, and the prophylactic instruction which was given to the jury with the consent of and at the urging of all counsel.

Defendants next argue that the court should have declared a mistrial when the first poll revealed that the jury was not unanimous. Rule 31 d of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that where a poll reveals a lack of unanimity on the jury, the judge may either direct the jury to retire for further deliberations or discharge the jury. The judge has discretion to elect between these two alternatives and his decision is entitled to deference on review.

Application of this standard often requires a balancing of two broad interests: In balancing these interests, many factors are examined:. Application of these criteria to the facts of this case affirms that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the jury to continue deliberating. Therefore, defendants themselves made a considered decision that it would be better to have the deliberations completed by a particular tribunal than to have the tribunal discharged.

Because defendants chose this course, they should not now be heard to complain. The decision in Government of the Virgin Islands v.

In Smith, the trial judge, believing that the jurors were deadlocked, ordered them discharged. To his surprise, he received a telephone best forex trading technique from the foreman one hour later indicating that a verdict had been reached on one count and that it was recorded on a piece of paper located in a drawer in the jury artificial neural networks stock market prediction. Three days later, the jury reconvened, the foreman read the verdict, and all jurors expressed their agreement with the finding.

It was not until the matter was appealed that defendant objected to the dismissal of the jury and its reconvention. By then, however, it was too late:. For similar reasons, this court finds that by not making a timely objection for a mistrial after the lack of unanimity in the verdict was revealed, defendants have waived their right to object. First, the jury had been deliberating for only 30 hours in a trial which lasted for almost five months.

Second, the indictment contained 46 counts, some of which were particularly complex. Third, although the jurors had indicated that they were deadlocked a day earlier, all subsequent communications indicated that the deliberations were continuing. Finally, the jurors never indicated that they were exhausted.

The court therefore finds that it properly exercised its discretion in ordering the jury to continue deliberating after the poll disclosed a lack of unanimity. In each case, the trial court had ordered the jury to continue deliberating after a poll revealed a lack of unanimity. Both lower court decisions were upheld on appeal, with the court in Smith noting:.

The trial judge is in a better position than the appellate court to determine the effect of a dissenting or uncertain vote upon the likelihood that further deliberations will yield a freely given verdict. His judgment is entitled to deference. Decision to Discontinue Poll After Juror Four Announced Dissent with Verdict. Defendants also allege that the court had improperly refused to continue the poll of the jurors after juror 4 dissented with the verdict.

The practice of making such inquiries is condemned flee in live market market nj stock it tends to have a coercive effect on jury deliberations:. It can rarely be resorted to without bringing to bear in some degree, serious although not measurable, an improper influence upon the jury, from whose deliberations every consideration other than that of the evidence and the law as expounded in a proper charge, should be excluded.

Such a practice, which is never useful and is generally harmful, is not to be sanctioned. Thus, even where the foreman only reveals the numerical division of the jury, without specifying which number favors conviction, there is reversible error.

Defendants argue that neither Brasfield nor Romain are controlling because both cases dealt with inquiries into the numerical division of the jury before a verdict was returned and neither dealt with the appropriateness of continuing a poll after a juror expressed dissent with the verdict. Defendants reason that if the court had continued the poll, other jurors might have voiced their dissent with the verdict and two salutary purposes might have been accomplished.

First, the court, aware of the strength of the dissent, might have declared a mistrial. As noted previously, there are many factors considered by a court in determining whether to declare a mistrial.

To the stock brokerage firm of blank leibowitz and weinberger has analyzed and recommended into the numerical division of a jury is so flagrantly improper, Brasfield v.

Melnick, because no longer publicly isolated as the lone dissenter, would have felt less pressure to change her vote. This argument is based on nothing more than sheer speculation. Melnick would then truly have been the lone publicly dissenting juror.

Under those circumstances, defendants undoubtedly would contend that, by continuing the polling, the court had improperly inquired into the numerical division of the jury, and had thus publicly exposed Mrs. Melnick as the lone dissenter and had placed such great pressure upon her that she had no alternative but to ultimately change her vote.

The purpose of polling a jury is to ensure that there is unanimity in the verdict. Once a juror registers dissent with the verdict, no purpose is accomplished by continuing the poll.

The court followed this course and in so doing committed no error. Furthermore, if there had been other dissenters to the verdict, they had the opportunity spreadsheet trade books available for microsoft excel express that dissent during the second polling.

Defendants next contend that the court erred by not instructing the jurors, when they were ordered to continue their deliberations, that they were free to change their prior votes. Therefore, the right to contest the alleged procedural defect has been waived. Government of the Virgin Islands v.

Melnick voiced her dissent with the verdict. The jury was thus instructed to continue its deliberations because the verdict was not unanimous. The court had already made it clear to the jurors through its previous instructions that each juror was free to change his or her mind and that for a verdict to 60 seconds binary option youtube bullet review valid it had to be unanimous.

Defendants next argue that because the foreman did not repeat the verdict prior to the repolling of the jury, the verdict is a nullity. A note had been sent to the court by the jury requesting that the polling be continued. Although defense counsel urged the court to begin the poll with juror five, the court decided that the jury could properly be repolled only by beginning with the first juror. At no time after the court announced that it was going to start the poll anew did defendants request that the foreman repeat the verdict or announce a new verdict.

Therefore, again, by failing to interpose a timely objection, defendants have waived their right to challenge an alleged procedural defect. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that a verdict was not a nullity even though only eleven jurors were present when it was read, Humphries v. District of Columbia, U. When the jurors unanimously responded in the affirmative to the repolling, there is no doubt that the verdict they were affirming was the verdict that the foreman had read aloud only minutes before.

In initiating the repolling, the court specifically stated: Because only one verdict had been announced by the foreperson, there is only one verdict that the jurors could have been addressing in giving their responses to the poll.

This is affirmed by the signed verdict sheet submitted to the court, which corresponds exactly with the verdict initially read by the foreperson.

There can be no question, and the court so finds, that each and every juror, as well as everyone in the courtroom, knew that the jury was being polled on the verdict previously announced.

To conclude otherwise would be to totally ignore the realities of the situation as it then existed. The jurors had been returned to the jury room to continue their deliberations because a unanimous verdict had not been reached. They understood and had been instructed that their verdict had to be unanimous before the court would accept it. Thus, when they returned a second time, it was for the clear purpose of announcing a unanimous poll.

No other purpose was intended. No other interpretation is reasonable. Moreover, there would have been no reason for the jury to have asked that the poll be continued unless Mrs. Melnick had changed her vote. Every juror still had the opportunity to express his or her agreement or disagreement with the verdict. In effect, the message conveyed that the jury was indeed unanimous as originally indicated and that Mrs. Melnick was now prepared to so indicate. Defendants contend that the court improperly rejected their request to have the jury polled on the individual counts of the indictment.

There is no absolute right to have a jury polled. The right exists only where it is seasonably exercised.

If the request for a poll is not made before the verdict is recorded, it comes too late. Defendants requested a poll of the jury immediately after the verdict was announced. Although this request was timely made, defendants did not ask at that time that the poll be particularized. Thus, the jurors were only required to state their agreement or disagreement with the verdict as announced by the foreperson.

During the first poll, juror 4 indicated that she did not agree with the verdict as announced. The jurors were then sent back to the jury room to continue their deliberations. Soon thereafter, the jury sent a note to the court requesting that the polling be continued.

The court advised counsel that it would begin the poll with juror 1. Although counsel did ask that the polling begin with juror 5, again, no request was made to have the court conduct a particularized poll. The poll was then conducted and all jurors indicated their agreement with the verdict as announced by the foreperson.

The court then entered the verdict and temporarily excused the jury while hearing motions of counsel. It was only after the motions neared the end, and the court was prepared to return the jury to the courtroom to be discharged that counsel asked for the first time that the jury be polled on every count of the indictment.

That request was denied. Although defendants urge that the request for particularized polling was improperly denied, the request was not timely made. If defendants thought that the indictment was sufficiently complex to warrant specific polling on each count, then a request for such a poll should have been made at the time that the verdict was originally announced.

Defendants had more than ample time to make the request. By waiting until after the verdict was entered, however, defendants waived their right to request a different form of poll than that which was sought originally.

The uncertainty in the verdict allegedly stems from certain gesticulations made by juror 4 at the time she expressed her agreement with the decision. In Morris, a verdict was returned in which all five defendants were found guilty. When the jury was polled as to each defendant, the foreman stated that he disagreed with the verdict with respect to one defendant.

The judge declared a mistrial as to that defendant. The court held that where the polling revealed uncertainty, the trial judge had an obligation to take remedial action. The situation here is distinguishable from that in Morris. Although juror 4 made certain gesticulations at the time she indicated her agreement with the verdict, the court cannot conclude that these gestures indicated uncertainty with the decision. If the response itself indicates uncertainty with the verdict, then the court should take remedial action.

Furthermore, agreement with a verdict does not require pleasure in its announcement. A juror may display unhappiness with a verdict, or reluctance or sadness in its rendition, but still believe in its correctness. A juror may cry over a verdict in which he or she has participated without in any way evidencing disagreement with it. Few jurors relish a finding of guilt. The validity of a poll should depend on what the court hears and not what it sees. In addition, the court finds that individualized polling was unnecessary.

This is not a case where on each count some of the defendants were guilty and some were not guilty. Here, where any one defendant was found guilty on a count, all persons accused in that count were also found guilty. It is only in the latter situation that the uncertainty created would require particularized polling.

Here, however, all jurors voiced their agreement with the verdict. Defendants contend that the court had improperly refused to speak with juror 4, Mrs. Melnick, when she indicated that she had something to say to the court. To understand why the court responded to her request as it did, one must recall the events of the moment. When the foreperson began announcing the verdict to a courtroom clearly filled with supporters of the defendants, Mrs.

Musto, the wife of the defendant William V. The government moved to clear the courtroom, a suggestion which the court rejected. The court did ask, however, if someone would come to the assistance of Mrs. She refused and she continued through the reading of the long verdict to loudly sob and cry-a moment that had incredible dramatic and emotional impact upon anyone with any feelings in the courtroom.

It was in this atmosphere that the jury polling began and Mrs. The jurors were then excused because their verdict had not been unanimous; they were requested to resume deliberations.

As the jurors were leaving the courtroom, Mrs. Although defendants suggest a myriad of possibilities, one can properly assume that Mrs. Melnick wished to meet with the court, or whether the jury wished to continue its deliberations. Before that note could be delivered, a note was received from the jury requesting that the polling continue.

No more than ten to fifteen minutes had elapsed. When the jury was repolled, it was unanimous. Melnick, as well as one or two of the other female jurors, were crying, which was certainly understandable in view of the length of the trial, the length of the deliberations, and the tension of the courtroom at the time the verdict was entered, coupled with Mrs.

Counsel requested that the court permit Mrs. Although, concededly, many other possibilities exist, it is most probable that Mrs. Melnick was instructed by the court, and a copy of the charge was delivered to her setting forth her individual responsibilities. Her right to disagree was clearly enunciated in the charge and repeated in open court.

She also knew from reviewing the charge that she had the right to communicate with the court by a written note. Steidl had met with the court. In essence, the defendants claim that pressure was brought to bear upon Mrs. Melnick based upon her change of vote and from her demeanor when she subsequently agreed to the verdict. As a result, the defendants seek to inquire of Mrs.

Melnick what it is that she wished to say to the court. She took an oath; she knew her obligation; and the court must assume that she would abide by her oath. During the course of jury deliberations there are numerous pressures which are brought to bear upon the jurors, particularly those who find themselves in a minority position.

It is unthinkable that such pressures would not exist, and they undoubtedly multiply as the size of the minority diminishes. One would expect that those in the majority would argue and shout in an attempt to persuade those in the minority to accept the views of the majority.

The size of the jury room itself, the length of time of the deliberations, coupled with the length of time of the trial, all create pressures as well. What constitutes pressure to one person will not necessarily constitute pressure to another. For instance, one of the alleged sources of pressure was the insistence that a dissenting juror express him or herself in support of the position taken. Counsel argued that a juror should be free not to express support for a position and the court so instructed the jury at the request of defense counsel.

However, on reflection, even that instruction was probably an improper intrusion into the jury process. Certainly, the jurors have a right to insist that a position be supported.

A juror taking a minority position might feel pressure if required to explain the position taken, but no one could seriously contend that such a demand by a foreperson or a majority of the jurors constitutes unfair or undue pressure upon a juror. There is nothing before the court which would justify a finding that any type of undue or unfair pressure was brought to bear upon any juror.

Live Stock Trade - Shorting 4,000 Shares of $FB

Furthermore, the jurors were advised that they could communicate, either individually or collectively or through the foreperson, with the court in writing. No such communication was received. They were also instructed as to the limited role of the foreperson and the equality of his position with other jurors. The jury process has traditionally been secret and for valid reasons. The policy encourages free and open discussion among jurors, promotes verdict finality, and maintains the integrity of the jury as a judicial decision-making body.

These same interests, which are protected by the policy of secrecy surrounding deliberations before a verdict is reached, are also reflected in Rule b of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which prohibits the impeachment of verdicts. The policy against conversing with jurors prior to the entry of the verdict is most evident in the cases dealing with the polling of jurors.

Those cases firmly establish that. It is both unwise and undesirable that the court should enter into an argument with the juror or require an explanation of his change of position. To an even greater degree is it improper to allow counsel to interpose and question the reasons or motives of the juror in changing his mind.

Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, 75 U. Similarly, where a juror asked to approach the bench when questioned by the judge during a poll, the judge properly refused to honor her request. And, where jurors gave the judge a note requesting leniency immediately after they were polled, the judge appropriately refused to conduct an inquiry:.

Making inquiries of the jury, as the defense requested, is not to be encouraged because it threatens the secrecy of jury deliberations and invites charges of coercion and interference with the jury function by the trial judge. Responses by individual jurors are unpredictable, and a dialogue, once begun, is often difficult to stop before it causes damage. Because questioning of jurors may easily intrude into the deliberative process and invite charges of coercion, United States v.

Just as pre-verdict inquiries of jurors should be avoided whenever possible, so should post-verdict inquiries. The rule against the impeachment of verdicts was formulated almost years ago in Vaise v. In Vaise, it was alleged that the verdict should be set aside because the jury tossed a coin to decide which party prevailed.

An affidavit, submitted by one of the jurors describing the impropriety, was refused by Lord Mansfield who noted: The rule formulated in Vaise has also been adopted by the courts of this country. It is no longer so rigidly applied, however, as it once was. This modern formulation of the rule and of its exception has been codified in Rule of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Defendants attempt to circumvent application of the rule by arguing that a hearing is necessary to determine whether what Mrs. Melnick wished to say falls within the prohibition of Rule Before defendants are entitled to a hearing they must produce evidence of misconduct which is not barred by the rule of juror incompetency. They must then establish the existence of grounds recognized as adequate to overturn the verdict.

Defendants have offered neither proof of juror misconduct nor proof of juror incompetence, yet they seek a hearing to determine whether there are reasons to overturn the verdict. In addition, this is not a case where juror incompetence, United States v. The defendants quite properly ask the question: But the courts throughout our history have decided that the constitutional rights of the accused are better protected by nondisclosure rather than disclosure of jury deliberations.

The policy of jury secrecy is so firmly ingrained in our system that only strong evidence of impropriety warrants inquiry. There is no strong evidence of impropriety in this matter, and it is not appropriate to conduct an inquiry to determine if it exists. Not all attempts by jurors to speak with the court must be turned aside, but a minimum threshold must be met.

That threshold has not been met in this matter. The facts must necessitate the hearing: The court therefore concludes that it acted properly in not conducting a hearing at trial and that a hearing at this stage would be equally improper because no evidence justifying such an inquiry has been presented. They undoubtedly viewed Mrs. Steidl as favorable to the defendants and were pleased with her retention on the jury. Melnick assented to the verdict she was crying and had shrugged her shoulders.

Although the juror was specifically instructed not to comment on the deliberations, she revealed to the court the pressures she allegedly was feeling from the deliberative process. I, the undersigned complainant, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Between in or about June and July I in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants ANGELO PRISCO, MICHAEL VISCONTI, and JOHN CAPPELLI:. I further state that I am a Special Agent with the State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation, and that this complaint is based on the following facts:. QUANDT, am a Special Agent with the State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation who has been deputized as a Special Deputy United States Marshal to work on an Organized Crime Task Force with the Federal Bureau of Investigation duly appointed according to law and acting as such.

I am familiar with the facts set forth herein through my personal participation in the investigation, and through oral and written reports from other federal agents and law enforcement officers. Where statements of others are related herein, they are related in substance and part.

Since this complaint is being submitted for a limited purpose, I have not set forth each and every fact that. VISCONTI was taking care of that thing for him. PRISCO made a motion as if he was swinging a baseball bat when he posed the question to VISCONTI, who responded by stating that he VISCONTI would handle it.

The CW understood this to be a further reference to the plan to assault EM. CAPPELLI told VISCONTI to make sure that defendant PRISCO received some of the money. The CW told PRISCO about the meeting the CW had with VISCONTI and defendant CAPPELLI on July 9, PRISCO responded that sometimes things do not work out and that CAPPELLI had to understand as much. The Commission shall have the duty and power to conduct investigations in connection with … organized crime and racketeering ….

Among the criminal groups which should receive more attention than they have in the past are those of African ethnic background. The neglect of this problem stems, in part, from the erroneous stereotype that African ethnic groups lack the stability to organize and are not capable of structuring a syndicate of any consequence.

Whatever the cause of the neglect, it has led, in many areas, to a serious shortage of information concerning the activities, membership and leadership of Afro-lineal criminal groups. Their leaders are insulated from police investigations. They have terrorized neighborhoods, corrupted youth and fanned vio. These efforts culminated in a public hearing on November 29, In addition, some successful law enforcement efforts to curtail Afro-lineal organized crime will be highlighted in anticipation that they will be imitated elsewhere in New Jersey.

Sowney, African-American groups have been identified as active in thirteen counties: Passaic, Bergen, Hudson, Essex, Union, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, Camden, Mercer, Somerset and Morris. The survey also showed that Jamaican posses operated throughout New Jersey. Jamaican posses primarily distribute drugs and traffic in weapons, but they also engage in homicides, robberies, assaults and extortion.

Agencies identified Nigerian criminal operations in six counties, Hudson, Essex, Union, Middlesex, Burlington and Mercer. Local groups are small, but they interact with larger groups on the national level. Those Nigerians involved in the smuggling of heroin and cocaine into the United States have not, to date, been linked to the leadership of the organized Nigerian fraud networks, although both the fraud and narcotics operations have ties to operatives in Nigeria.

Ashton, Special Agent-in-Charge of the U. The source of supply for this group was also in New York. Our investigation revealed that this North Carolina-based organization and importer of heroin, consisting of well over members, was the source of supply to both individuals in New York which supplied the organizations I referred to in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, as well as other groups in Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Richmond and Norfolk.

New Jersey has a significant presence of African-American organized crime. It was headed by Wayne Akbar Pray for nearly 20 years until his incarceration in federal prison in for life, without the opportunity for parole. Nonetheless, he had not been … brought to justice, so to speak. It is based in Essex County and consists of over two hundred members. In fact, Akbar referred to himself as Akbar Akbar in some cases, or the greatest of the great.

He lived up to this name by assuming control over a vast and durable criminal network. In addition, he was responsible for distributing approximately pounds of marijuana during the same period. Paterson was incarcerated on April 28,after a conviction for distributing drugs to minors.

Led by Eddie Ratchford, once an associate of Wayne Pray, the group numbers only about 15 members. His brother, Derrick, is in federal prison for drug distribution and is scheduled for release on October 10, Two other brothers, Marvin and Willie, continue the operations of the group.

The Brown group distributes drugs in the 17th Avenue area. It occasionally cooperates with the Ratchford brothers, according to Director Coleman, and was similarly led by three brothers. One brother, Ernest Bowas incarcerated in state prison for murder on June 25, Until he was recently sentenced to 60 years in prison, Roger G. Little Akbar; Little Ak Williams led a cocaine and heroin distribution ring, which had at least 30 members and operated in the Prince Street area of Newark.

The Williams group was recently involved in a turf war with the Ratchford family in the area of Prince Street. Another group which distributes cocaine in the Prince Street area is headed by Harry Butch Lee. The group is composed of members. Lee oversees the group from his residence in the state of Georgia. The group was headed by the late Roland Pops Bartlett, a resident of New Jersey, until his federal conviction in the fall of for conspiracy to distribute heroin and operating a continuing criminal enterprise.

Bartlett was sentenced to life with a minimum year term in December He died in federal prison on January 15, Bartlett cooperated with the Genovese-Gigante crime family of La Cosa Nostra and made substantial investments in legitimate businesses.

Bartlett group members and associates sold heroin and cocaine to street operatives in Camden and Burlington counties in New Jersey. Based in Philadelphia, the Junior Black Mafia JBM is involved primarily in the distribution of drugs, mainly cocaine. It also offers murder contract services. The JBM cooperates with associates of the Bruno-Scarfo LCN crime family in the distribution of cocaine and appears to have modeled its criminal methods after that organization, relying heavily on violence and extortion to further its drug enterprises.

The JBM came into existence in to counter a sudden migration of New York-based Jamaican posses into the Philadelphia drug scene. Original members of the s Black Mafia and later Black, Inc. The JBM is estimated to have approximately members and about street-level associates.

Its members drive expensive cars and often wear gold jewelry and rings with the JBM initials encrusted in diamonds. The Commission has been able to document at least two members and eight associates living in Camden and Burlington counties. Just as the old Black Mafia from Philadelphia eventually spread into Camden, Burlington, Gloucester, Cumberland and Atlantic counties, it is likely that this new group of African-American organized criminals will follow suit.

In response to questions by SCI Counsel Charlotte K. What is the age range of these youths? Their ages range between 13 and 24 years old.

Best flea markets in NJ for vintage clothes, antiques and produce

In northern New Jersey African-American illegal gambling operatives work with the LCN. Tyler of Jersey City runs a gambling and narcotics operation in conjunction with the Genovese-Gigante crime family.

Also in Jersey City, Eugene Terry, Sr. Terry, along with his brother, Steven Buzz Terry, is also involved in the financing of a cocaine distribution network. In Trenton an African-American known as Wayne Pack conducts an illegal lottery which lays off to Gambino-Gotti LCN associate Anthony Pushy Pulcinello. In its early years, its leaders dealt with the Bruno-Scarfo LCN family. After the arrests, the two groups merged under the leadership of the younger brother, Bilal. Several expensive cars driven by group members were placed in the names of their acquaintances or relatives.

Detective Swan testified as to the grandiose style in which Bilal Pretlow pursued his goal to expand:. Bilal convened a meeting of drug dealers from all over Elizabeth in a central New Jersey restaurant.

The cocaine was generally transported to Elizabeth in taxi cabs. Mutah Sessoms, the informant, was murdered in June Robert Pretlow was slain by a rival gang on July 9, Telephone toll records to the apartment used by Shawn Hartwell, his first lieutenant who ran the operation in his absence, showed nearly collect calls from the Union County Jail from December to early February Some lasted more than an hour.

We had one or two going into three and a half hours. Normally the inmates are allowed use the public telephone at the jail during a specific eight-hour period, and each is restricted to approximately five, maybe ten minutes at a time. Bilal Pretlow, however, ingratiated himself with other inmates by getting his underlings to post bail for them. He bought them gifts and promised them jobs upon his release. The inmates returned favors by giving up their allotted telephone time to Pretlow.

This alone, though, does not adequately explain to us … the extensive use of the telephone [from the jail].

Federal charges brought by the United States Attorney for New Jersey are pending against Bilal Pretlow and eight other members of his group. He is presently scheduled to begin trial in federal court in Newark on March 26, along with eight other members of his group charged with participating in the drug ring and various other offenses. Bilal Pretlow is presently serving a year sentence in state prison stemming from a drug trafficking conviction in November arising out of Operation Pioneer.

He employed at least four juveniles to assist in the drug sales. Somerset County Prosecutor Nicholas L. Please describe the operation of [the Isaac Wright] group and the roles played byvarious individuals in it and the efforts by law enforcement to discover it and curtail its activities.

Did your office cooperate with other law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the Wright group? And this operation became a joint operation with that office.

And we formed a unit known as the Border Anti-Drug Team [BAT] to deal specifically with this investigation and with successor organizations.

Essentially [the BAT] unit provides personnel from each of the offices that I mentioned to work in a specific area and on a specific problem. And we formed that unit to do the same thing in that area.

Yes, this group was unique because they did not operate from a fixed location. They essentially operated out of the automobiles that Wright leased for the members of the group, and they contacted each other by use of cellular telephones and telephone paging devices. Now, when you talk about the electronic surveillance, did the State Police supply the expertise and you supplied the equipment?

In the s the Five Percenters migrated from New York to New Jersey and several other states. They are presently concentrated in Monmouth and Ocean counties with approximately 14 chapters numbering about to members in Monmouth County, according to Detective Jordan.

Since they are an offshoot of a religious movement, we should clarify one thing. Are all Five Percenters involved in violence and crimes? I have met, in my experience sinceof tracking, two families that have not been involved in any way, form or fashion with the negative aspects. Under questioning by SCI Deputy Director and Counsel Robert J.

Five Percenters are involved in drug sales, sales of guns, robbery, stolen cars, chop shops, murder, all types of criminal activities. So the pure righteous life is a Five Percenter who is not involved in criminal activity? One of the key places where they go to have these rallies is in New York City. We have also tracked them since as having their rallies down in Florida, Great Adventure in Jackson [Township, New Jersey] and also several parks [within] the State of New Jersey, such as Shark River Park in Neptune and several other parks in Monmouth, Middlesex and Ocean counties.

The purpose is supposedly to educate the young men [and] young women in the better understanding of their culture. We have found that a lot of them are involved in narcotics trafficking, … that is, that they are going out, instead of attending the meetings, for example, the bus takes them from here to New York City, some will attend the rallies, the others will stray away and be involved in a lot of narcotics trafficking and bringing the drugs back across the line.

Certain members use the rally for certain things like to make connection for drugs, guns or whatever they into at that time. The Five Percenters have run into some barriers to the spread of their organization.

In answer to Commissioner Kenneth D. And as a result of that it is very difficult for the Five Percenters to get a foothold. You have to understand also that it is taboo in the Muslim faith to call yourself a god, so here you have these gentlemen calling themselves gods and the Muslim community just does not want to hear that, so they denounce what they are doing.

Women, for the most part, are basically an auxiliary. They are used, for the most part, to be impregnated, to have the children … to keep the movement going. Part of that is then given back to them. A majority of it is turned over into narcotics trafficking …. Five Percenters are apparently not consistently responsive to a centralized leadership. Leaders in the movement may be called ministers, Allah, Father Teacher, Father Allah, and the like, according to Investigator Jordan.

The disguised witness further described the leadership and organization of the Five Percenters and the division of profits from illegal activities:. What happens to the proceeds of Five Percenter criminal activity, that is the money that is earned? It goes to support the Five Percent Nation. Someone decides to do a certain crime, and the rest agree. They go up to, like th Street or th Street, Upper Manhattan or the Bronx and buy the cocaine from the Dominicans. They sell drugs, they steal cars, they do burglaries, commit murder, they have police working for them.

I guess you could say they were an organized crime group. While testifying specifically about the Five Percenters, Investigator Jordan described the gang problem in general. He noted that although there are about 14 Five Percenter chapters in Monmouth County, there are approximately 68 gangs in that county involved in criminal activity.

Investigator Jordan is a member of Concerned Officers Organization On Gang Activities CO3GA or COOOGA. What we do is monitor groups that are out there, youth groups, as well as adult groups, and if we find that they are involved in gang activity or they take up criminal activity, we inform not only the local police department, but the community as a whole.

Does it have any ties to law enforcement, aside from the members being from law enforcement, a lot of them? Yes, we will work with any organization that is in the State of New Jersey or elsewhere to help combat this juvenile delinquency problem or gang problem. And this organization studies gangs that are not just Five Percenters, is that right?

Yes, we say that there must be four elements that must be met … for them to be classified as a gang. The first one is they must have an identifiable leader.

The two largest Jamaican posses are Shower and Spangler. Many of the active posses in the United States are spin-offs from these two. Traditionally, the Shower and Spangler groups have been bitter enemies because of their political differences.

Typically, posse members and associates use aliases, nicknames and false identification. Most who enter the United States are here illegally.

They are very adept at obtaining phony drivers licenses, birth certificates, passports, citizenship cards and naturalization certificates. We would use hotels and motels specifically in New Jersey on Route 4 to keep marijuana and later distribute it back over into the New York area.

Well, from my experience personally I would say that Paterson is the number one area in New Jersey, you know, and also places like East Orange. Maybe because posse members, they have relatives that live in the Paterson area and East Orange, you know, and because of this it was always a good area to hide out, you know. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ATF estimates that there are at least 40 Jamaican posses with more than 13, members operating in the United States.

Shower, Spangler, Dunkirk Boys, Tel Aviv and Waterhouse. Members or associates of other posses who are not aligned with an operational drug network have also been arrested in New Jersey. Similar to many La Cosa Nostra operatives who live in New Jersey and conduct their criminal activities in New York, many Jamaican posse members whooperate drug distribution networks in New York have chosen to live in New Jersey.

In addition to the posses already mentioned, members of the Paineland and Two Mile posses have been identified as living in New Jersey. Its members have been avid supporters of the Jamaican Labor Party JLP. Its name derives from its reputation for showering its victims with bullets.

In September a federal grand jury in Miami indicted 34 members of the Shower Posse, including Lester Lloyd Big Jim Brown Coke, the top leader in Kingston, as well as Vivian Blake, the top leader in the United States. Blake is still a fugitive. Intelligence information indicates that in September he had been in Atlantic City for less than 24 hours before departing for Toronto and then to Jamaica. Shower Posse networks are involved in the sale of cocaine and marijuana in the New Jersey cities of Newark, East Orange, Irvington, Camden, Atlantic City, Vineland, Trenton and Bridgeton.

Recent arrest statistics indicate that the number of Shower Posse members operating within the state is growing. As of November53 Shower Posse members had been arrested in New Jersey for involvement in drug distribution.

Inthe number of members identified increased to Under investigation by New York authorities, Toywell Phillips fled back to Jamaica in early Some law enforcement officials believe that the new leader of the Spanglers in New York City will be from New Jersey.

According to the disguised Jamaican witness and several other sources, the leader of the Spanglers in Jamaica is an individual named Dannie Dodd. Glenford Phipps was murdered in Kingston on July 15,while acting in his capacity as Supervisor of Metropolitan Parks and Markets in Kingston. Toywell Phillips was killed on December 1,in Jamaica, reportedly on orders of Lester Lloyd Coke, the leader of the Shower Posse in Jamaica. Spangler Posse networks distribute primarily marijuana, cocaine and crack in Paterson.

The Dunkirk Boys Posse, also known as Kirkys, has been under the leadership of Dennis Stickman Smith since From throughthe Dunkirk Boys in New York City were at war with the Spangler Posse, but within the last two years a truce has been declared. Ledlo Blacker Gillings, who operated in conjunction with this cell of Dunkirk Boys, was sentenced to federal prison on March 3,on charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

The other members of this cell split, some moving theiroperations to Boston, others to Richmond, Virginia. Intelligence information indicated that in several members of the Dunkirk Boys who left New York City went to the New Brunswick area. These persons, who were only known by their street names, were not reported to be involved in drug distribution.

Instead, they were using New Brunswick only as a safe area. At the present time, however, there is no known network of this posse actively operating in New Jersey. This posse originated in the Tellerville section of Kingston, where it was initially known on the streets as the Skulls. Its members support the PNP, and they have been known to associate closely with members of the Jungle Posse. The Spangler Posse has long operated several drug distribution networks in Paterson, and it appears that they are operating independently of and not in conflict with this new posse.