UNITED STATES of America,
v.
BADALAMENTI, et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
November 26, 1985.
November 26, 1985.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y. by Richard Martin, Louis Freeh, Robert Stewart, Robert Bucknam, Asst. U.S. Attys., New York City, for U.S.
Michael Kennedy, New York City, for defendant Gaetano Badalamenti.
Ivan Fisher, New York City, for defendant Salvatore Catalano.
Anthony Lombardino, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for defendant Joseph Lamberti.
Joseph Benfante, New York City, for defendant Salvatore Mazzurco.
Frank A. Lopez, Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant Salvatore Lamberti.
Steven Kimelman, New York City, for defendant Giovanni Ligammari.
James La Rossa & Paul Bergman, New York City, for defendant Baldassare Amato.
Lawrence H. Schoenbach, New York City, for defendant Vincenzo Randazzo.
Patrick Burke, Suffern, N.Y., for defendant Pietro Alfano.
David De Petris, New York City, for defendant Emmanuele Palazzolo.
David Lewis, New York City, for defendant Samuel Evola.
Robert Koppelman, New York City, for defendant Vito Badalamenti.
Larry Ruggiero, New York City, for defendants Giuseppe Trupiano and Giuseppe Vitale.
James Moriarty, New York City, for defendant Lorenzo DeVardo.
Gerald V. Dichiara, New York City, for defendant Giovanni Cangialosi.
Robert C. Fogelnest, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Salvatore Salamone.
Larry Bronson, Bayonne, N.J., for defendant Salvatore Greco.
Kenneth Kaplan, New York City, for defendant Frank Castronovo.
Marvin Segal, New York City, for defendant Gaetano Mazzara.
Michael Querques, Orange, N.J., for defendant Francesco Polizzi.
Joseph W. Ryan, Jr., Mineola, N.Y., for defendant Filippo Casamento.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
OPINION AND ORDER
LEVAL, District Judge.
The Government moves to require the defense attorneys at the conclusion of each witness' examination to return to it the materials produced under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Defendant Amato resists the application and contends there is no provision in the statute or elsewhere requiring such return.
The Government cites no decisional authority supporting its position, but claims that tradition and...
Let's get started
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.
