1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 715 F.2d
  5. 715 F.2d 822 (1983)
 

UNITED STATES v. AIMONE

Nos. 82-5290, 82-5297, 82-5298, 82-5304 to 82-5307, 82-5511 and 82-5512.

715 F.2d 822 (1983)

UNITED STATES of America v. AIMONE, Gildo, Appellant in No. 82-5290. UNITED STATES of America v. DENTICO, Lawrence, Appellant in Nos. 82-5297 and 82-5511. UNITED STATES of America v. D'AGOSTINO, Dominick, Appellant in Nos. 82-5298 and 82-5512. UNITED STATES of America v. MUSTO, William V., Appellant in No. 82-5304. UNITED STATES of America v. SCARAFILE, Frank, Appellant in No. 82-5305. UNITED STATES of America v. POWERS, John J., Appellant in No. 82-5306. UNITED STATES of America v. GENOVESE, Anthony, Appellant in No. 82-5307.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided August 25, 1983.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied September 19, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William M. Kunstler (argued), Mark B. Gombiner, Kunstler & Mason, New York City, for appellants Dentico and D'Agostino.

Theodore V. Wells, Jr. (argued), Judy G. Russell, Lance D. Cassak, Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan, Roseland, N.J., for appellants Musto, Scarafile and Genovese and Co-counsel for appellant Powers.

Joseph A. Hayden, Jr. (argued), Shain, Hayden, Perle, Rafanello & Schaffer, Newark, N.J., for appellant Powers.

Robert A. Baime, Sills, Beck, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin & Tishman, P.A., Newark, N.J., for appellant Aimone.

Samuel Rosenthal (argued), Chief, Appeals Division, Asst. U.S. Atty., W. Hunt Dumont, U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., for appellee.

Alan Ellis, Philadelphia, Pa., S.A. Guiberson, Houston, Tex., for amicus curiae, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc.

Before ADAMS and WEIS, Circuit Judges and VanARTSDALEN, District Judge.

Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied September 19, 1983.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Defendants in these consolidated appeals were found guilty of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They contend there was discrimination in the selection of grand jury forepersons and a variance between the conspiracy charged and the evidence at trial. They also challenge the verdict because the trial judge interviewed...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases