Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


February 23, 1999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD HESS, ARTHUR PENA, JOHN MORROW, AND CARLOS RIVERA, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

OPINION REGARDING BILL OF PARTICULARS

This matter is before the court on the motions of defendants Carlos Rivera, John Morrow, Richard Hess and Arthur Pena for a bill of particulars, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f).

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 1998, a Grand Jury for the District of New Jersey returned a 26 count Superseding Indictment charging defendants Richard Hess, Arthur Pena, John Morrow, Carlos Rivera, and Raymond Sancho with conspiracy and various predicate offenses that allegedly resulted in the West New York Police Department, (the "WNYPD"), being operated through a pattern of racketeering activity that included extortion and bribery in the misuses of police authority in violation of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, ("RICO"), Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Sancho has subsequently entered a plea of guilty.

The Superseding Indictment charges all four remaining defendants with racketeering (Count 1) and involvement in the RICO Conspiracy (Count 2), as well as involvement in the substantive acts relating to the alleged misuse of their authority as police officers -- namely, their alleged involvement in the conspiracy to extort money in exchange for protection of the illegal gambling establishments of Boardwalk Amusements (Predicate Act 2 and Count 4).

Morrow and Rivera are also charged in the conspiracy to extort money in exchange for the improper return of illegal gambling device parts (Predicate Acts 13 and Count 13), as well as their alleged acceptance of extortion payments to protect the Boardwalk gambling businesses (Predicate Acts 10(a), 11(a), and 12(a) and Counts 10, 11, and 12) and their alleged acceptance or extortion payments to protect a prostitution business (Predicate Acts 18(a) and 19(a) and Counts 18 and 19). The Superseding Indictment also includes alleged conspiracy to commit theft of money seized during the course of police raids on establishments with illegal gambling machines (Count 23); and the alleged theft -- and acts of obstruction and concealment -- of approximately $60,000 in cash that had been found during the course of police investigation at the scene of a fire within West New York (Count 24).

Beyond Counts 1, 2, and 4 above, defendant Hess is further charged with conspiring with others in Predicate Acts 3, 4, and 5(b) through 9 of Count 1, with accepting bribes for the protection of the Boardwalk Amusements gambling establishments. This conduct also is charged substantively in Counts 5 through 9. Finally, Hess is charged in Predicate Acts 20(a) and (b), 21(a) and (b), and 22(a) and (b) of Count 1 with allegedly extorting payments and accepting bribes for the protection of a business that was engaged in the illegal sale of alcohol after curfew hours. This conduct comprises Counts 20, 21, and 22 of the Superseding Indictment.

The charges as to defendant Pena in the Superseding Indictment also include allegations he conspired to receive protection money in bribes from the Funhouse rides gambling business (Count 14), and that he extorted cash bribes and protection money from the Funhouse (Count 15), and that he conspired to receive bribes and protection money from GMOG's video gambling business (Count 16) as well as from LaCachita's and Manolo's video gambling business (Count 17). Pena is also charged with filing false income tax returns for 1991 and 1992 due to his alleged failure to report income derived from the alleged corrupt enterprise. (Counts 25 and 26).

DISCUSSION I. Standard on Motion for Bill of Particulars

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) permits a defendant, under certain circumstances, to obtain information about the charges against him from the government through a bill of particulars. Rule 7(f) states:

The court may direct the filing of a bill of particulars. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made before arraignment or within ten days after arraignment or at such later time as the court may permit. A bill of particulars may be amended at any time subject to such conditions as justice requires.

The purpose of a bill of particulars is "to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him, to adequately prepare his defense, to avoid surprise during trial and to protect him against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense." United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 63-64 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 936 (1972).

"Although Rule 7(f) is construed liberally, it does not permit a defendant to obtain wholesale discovery of the Government's evidence." United States v. Eisenberg, 773 F. Supp. 662, 689 (D.N.J. 1991). "A bill of particulars, unlike discovery, is not intended to provide the defendant with the fruits of the government's investigation." United States v. Smith. 776 F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985). "Rather, it is intended to give the defendant only that minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own investigation." Id. A bill or particulars also serves "to define and limit the government's case" because "as with an indictment, there can be no variance between the notice given in a bill of particulars and the evidence at trial." Id.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit has observed that "motions for a bill of particulars should be granted whenever an indictment's failure to provide factual or legal information significantly impairs the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or is likely to lead to prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Rosa, 891 F.2d 1063, 1066 (3d Cir. 1989). However, in deciding whether to grant a motion for a bill of particulars,

trial judges must be allowed to exercise broad discretion in order to strike a prudent balance between the defendant's legitimate interest in securing information concerning the government's case and numerous countervailing considerations ranging from the personal security of witnesses to the unfairness that can result from forcing the government to commit itself to a specific version of the facts before it is in a position to do so. Id.

Thus, "when discovery provided by the government fills in the outline of the indictment, the necessity for a bill of particulars declines." United States v. Sourlis, 953 F. Supp. 568, 578 (D.N.J. 1996); United States v. Caruso, 948 F. Supp. 382, 393 (D.N.J. 1996). The grant of a bill of particulars lies within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 29, 54 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 858 (1975).

In United States v. Vastola, 670 F. Supp. 1244, 1269-70 (D.N.J. 1987), the court held that the defendants in a complex RICO and RICO conspiracy case were entitled to a bill of particulars identifying the "central facts" of the government's case against them, while not requiring the government to provide information regarding uncharged overt acts and uncharged criminal conduct because such information was not central to the offenses as charged. Id.

With these teachings in mind, we examine the requests for a Bill of Particulars filed respectively by defendants Richard Hess, Arthur Pena, Carlos Rivera, and John Morrow (who joins Rivera's requests).

II. Determination Regarding Bills of Particulars

The 26-count Superseding Indictment against the four remaining defendants provides a substantially detailed recitation of allegations over the course of 51 pages. Similarly, many thousands of pages of discovery materials have been made available to the defendants for inspection and copying, together with hundreds of tapes of consensually recorded conversations. The government's trial exhibit list has been furnished recently, as required by the court, and 52 taped recordings are identified for use at this trial, according to AUSA Blaney's letter of February 17, 1999. Other discovery has been provided in response to specific requests. This court has the general impression that the United States has already provided a great deal of information framing the details of the crimes charged which, when added to the Superseding Indictment, supplies content to the allegations. The specific requests will be examined and granted where it appears that the indictment is vague and unfair, or when discovery has not given the defendant sufficient information to conduct his own investigation.

A. Defendant Richard Hess' Demand for Bill of Particulars

1. State specifically the identity of all co-conspirators in this case.

Defendant Richard Hess is charged with Counts 1-9 and 20-22. Only Counts 1-4 allege that he has conspired with others. Count 1 specifically names co-conspirators in Paragraphs 11-21 and elsewhere. Paragraph 44 contains the substantive racketeering charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and while it lists the named defendants and 12 named conspirators, it also alleges that "others" were conspirators without identifying them. If the United States is alleging that "others," beyond those identified in Count 1, were racketeering conspirators as alleged in ¶ 44, then defendant Hess is entitled to know who these alleged co-conspirators are. The court finds that the identities of co-conspirators, if known to the government, lies within the "minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own investigation," United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985), and to enable the court and the parties to identify an out-of-court declarant as an alleged co-conspirator for purposes of admitting such statements against a defendant at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The government shall supply such identification of the alleged "other" conspirators in Count 1, ¶ 44, and the request is granted to this extent.

The court's ruling is the same with respect to the racketeering conspiracy charged in Count 2, ¶ 2. The request is granted and the identification of the "other" RICO co-conspirators shall be supplied.

The same applies to Count 3, ¶ 2; the request is granted and the identification of the "other" conspirators involved in extortion of money from WNYPD detainees in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) shall be supplied.

Similarly, in Count 4, ¶ 2, the request is granted and the United States must identify any persons known to be other conspirators who are not already named in this charge of conspiracy to extort protection money from Boardwalk Amusements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).

The remaining counts against Hess do not allege that he is a co-conspirator (Counts 5-9 and 20-23) and his request is denied to that extent.

2. With respect to Racketeering Act 1(a) and (b) and Count 3, state the identity of all "other West New York Police officers" who conspired with Richard Hess, Raymond Sancho and Manuel Gonzalez to extort money from approximately 125 illegal aliens who were Detainees of the West New York Police Department. State the date within which Richard Hess became a member of this conspiracy with regard to Detainees. Additionally, state the names of the approximately 125 illegal alien Detainees who were the alleged victims of the extortion conspiracy. Furthermore, provide the dates and locations on which the alleged extortions occurred and the specific dollar amounts and/or personal property paid as bribes in furtherance of the extortion conspiracy. With respect to Racketeering Acts 1(a) and (b), please provide all West New York Police Department arrest reports, incident reports, continuation reports, property/evidence sheets, West New York Police Department desk log, Mobile Data Terminal ("M.D.T") logs and/or M.D.T. computer printouts or any other written memorandum prepared and kept in the ordinary course of the business of the West New York Police Department relating to the arrests and/or detention of the approximately 125 illegal alien Detainees.

The first sentence's request has already been granted. The second sentence, requiring the government to state the date when Hess became a member of the Count 3 conspiracy, is denied, as the Superseding Indictment contains sufficient information as to the starting date of the alleged conspiracy and this defendant's alleged date of joinder has not been shown to be a central detail.

The third and fourth sentences' requests, requiring names of the approximately 125 victims and the dates, locations, and dollar amounts of the bribes, are granted, and they shall be answered by the bill of particulars, as the present allegations regarding these alien victims are too vague. The fifth sentence is a discovery request, not a bill of particulars, and the court previously directed the government to make such arrest reports, incident reports, etc., available for inspection and copying by defendant Hess.

3. With respect to Racketeering Act 2 and Count 4, state the date within which Richard Hess became a member of the conspiracy. Additionally, state all of the dollar amounts, dates, and locations with respect to the extortion payments made by the principals of the Board Walk Amusements to Richard Hess. Additionally, set forth the names of all individuals who made consensual extortion payments to Richard Hess. Furthermore, set forth the names of all co-defendants and/or co-conspirators named or unnamed that the defendant is alleged to have conspired with and/or shared with any portion of the alleged extortion proceeds in furtherance of the racketeering activity.

The first sentence's request is denied. The second and third sentences' requests are also denied. These are matters of evidentiary detail in which the indictment in Racketeering Act 2 and Count 4 has already specified the owners of the Boardwalk as the payors. The allegations of Count 4 are considerably more specific than those of Count 3, above, because the identities of the Count 3 victims/detainees were apparently unknown so that more detail was required above to enable preparation of a defense regarding the alien extortion scheme. Count 4 suffers from no such vagueness. The final sentence's request was already granted in subpart A.1, above.

4. With respect to Racketeering Act 3; Racketeering Act 4; Racketeering Acts 5(a) and (b) and Count 5; Racketeering Acts 6(a) and (b) and Count 6; Racketeering Acts 7(a) and (b) and Count 7; Racketeering Acts 8(a) and (b) and Count 8; and Racketeering Acts 9(a) and (b) and Count 9. State the specific dates and specific dollar amounts of each payment in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1995 and 1997 wherein protection money was paid. Additionally, state the times, locations and the names of the co-defendants and/or co-conspirators named or unnamed who made each protection payment to Richard Hess. Furthermore, specifically state which role and or element Richard Hess was alleged to have participated in whether it was to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or otherwise. Set forth when Richard Hess became a member of this conspiracy.

These requests are denied with respect to Racketeering Acts 5(a)-9(a), since the Superseding Indictment is sufficiently specific in alleging that Hess received $800 per month for the months from January, 1993 through August 1997, according to Counts 5-9 on page 32. Similarly, the request is denied for Racketeering Acts 5(b)-9(b), because it was Hess who allegedly received the $800 per month and defendants Morrow and Rivera who allegedly conspired with Hess to do so with respect to these same monthly payments, and this information is sufficient.

As to Racketeering Acts 3 and 4, only Hess is named, with the allegations being that Hess received $800 per month in 1991 and 1992 by extortion and acceptances of bribes from Boardwalk. See Count 1, ¶¶ 45 & 48. This is sufficient and the request is denied.

5. With respect to Racketeering Acts 20(a) and (b) and Count 20; Racketeering Acts 21(a) and (b) and Count 21; and Racketeering Acts 22(a) and (b) and Count 22, state the specific dates and specific dollar amounts of each payment in 1993, 1994, and 1995 wherein extortion payments were made by the principals of an "after hours business". Additionally, state the times, locations and the names of the co-defendants and/or conspirators named or unnamed who made each extortion payment to Richard Hess. Furthermore, set forth the names of all co- defendants and/or co-conspirators named or unnamed that the defendant is alleged to have conspired with and shared with any portion of the alleged extortion proceeds in furtherance of the Racketeering activity. Set forth the date when Richard Hess became a member of this conspiracy and state which role and/or element Richard Hess was alleged to have participated in, whether it was to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or otherwise.

Racketeering Acts 20(a)&(b), 21(a)&(b), and 22(a)&(b), like Counts 20, 21, and 22, do not allege that defendant Hess acted with co-conspirators. The Superseding Indictment sufficiently states the amount and frequency of the payments Hess allegedly received to protect an after-hours business. The indictment does not name the particular after-hours business nor does it identify the business' owners who allegedly consented to make these bribes to Hess. This level of specificity is necessary to assure adequate notice to defendant Hess.

This request will therefore be granted to compel the United States to specify the particulars of the name of the after-hours business and its owner who allegedly consented to such payments as alleged in Counts 20-22 and Racketeering Acts 20(a)&(b), 21(a)&(b), and 22(a)&(b), and it is otherwise denied.

B. Defendant Arthur Pena's Demand for Bill of Particulars

1. State specifically the identity of all co-conspirators in this case.

Defendant Pena is charged in Counts 1, 2, 4, 14-17, and 25-26 of the Superseding Indictment. Counts 1, 2, 4, 14, 16, and 17 allege he conspired with others, while Count 15 (which omits language of conspiracy but alleges that Pena acted together with Alexander V. Oriente, Carmine Gaeta "and others," to aid and abet the demand and acceptance of bribe and protection money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) & 2) does not, and Counts 25-26 pertain to Pena's alleged false filing of his 1991 and 1992 income tax returns.

For Counts 1, 2, and 4, the United States has been required to identify the "other" conspirators, as indicated in subpart A.1, above.

For Counts 14, 16, and 17, the United States will be required to identify the "other" conspirators in its Bill of Particulars as to these items. To this extent, this request is granted.

2. With respect to Racketeering Act 2 and Count Four, state the date within which Arthur Pena became a member of the conspiracy. Additionally, state all dollar amounts, dates, and locations with respect to extortion payments made by the principals of Boardwalk Amusements paid with their consent.

The first sentence's request is denied. The second sentence's request is also denied; these are matters of evidentiary detail essentially involving overt acts in furtherance of the § 1951(a) conspiracy. The Superseding Indictment presents sufficient detail regarding the elements of the alleged conspiracy, including its membership and purpose. This request is denied.

3. With respect to Racketeering Act 14 and Count Fourteen, state the specific date or dates between January 1992 and August 1997 wherein Arthur Pena became a member of the conspiracy. Additionally, state all dollar amounts, dates, and locations with respect to extortion payments made by the principals of Funhouse paid with their consent.

Count 14 charges Pens with conspiring with named individuals and others to demand and accept protection money from the proceeds of the video gambling business of Funhouse in violation of § 1951(a). The first sentence's request is denied. The second is likewise denied because the Superseding Indictment is sufficiently specific regarding the elements of the alleged conspiracy, including its membership and purpose. This request is denied.

4. With respect to Racketeering Act 15(a) and 15(b) and Count Fifteen, state the specific date in January 1993 and the specific dollar amount of any protection payments made from Funhouse gambling venues to Arthur Pena.

Count 15 is a substantial charge that Pena, together with other named individuals, demanded and received a bribe payment of $600 from the proceeds of a Funhouse gambling venue in the last two weeks of January, 1993. It is difficult to determine from the wording of Count 15 and Racketeering Acts 15(a) and 15(b) whether Pena is charged as a principal or as an aider and abettor. The payment is described as "approximately $600.00" in Count 15, but "approximately $1,000.00" in Racketeering Acts 15(a)&(b). If these are discrepancies, this Bill of Particulars gives the United States the opportunity to clarify these figures, which are not necessarily the same. While the United States need not supply a more precise date, it will be required to supply more particular specification of this amount and the identity of the person to whom the Funhouse proceeds were allegedly paid. This request is therefore granted in part.

5. With respect to Racketeering Act 16 and Count Sixteen, state the date within which Arthur Pena became a member of the conspiracy with regard to GMOG. Additionally, state all dollar amounts, dates, and locations with respect to extortion payments made by the principals of GMOG paid with their consent.

Count 16 alleges Pena conspired with named individuals to extort money from GMOG in amounts ranging from $100 to $2,000 paid by consent of GMOG's owners in violation of § 1951(a). The first sentence's request is denied. The second sentence's request is likewise denied because the Superseding Indictment is sufficiently specific regarding the elements of the alleged conspiracy, including its membership and purpose. This request is denied.

6. With respect to Racketeering Act 17 and Count Seventeen, state the date within which Arthur Pena became a member of the conspiracy. Additionally, state all dollar amounts, dates and locations with respect to extortion payments made by the principals of LaCachita and Manolo's. Additionally, state all dollar amounts, dates and locations made by the principals of LaCachita and Manolo's with their consent.

Count 17 charges Pena with conspiracy with named individuals to extort protection money of about $2,000 per month from the video gambling business of LaCachita's and Manolo's, in violation of § 1951(a). Again, as with Counts 14 and 16 above, the particular payments are not essential to proof of the conspiracy charge, and the elements of the conspiracy are defined with reasonable particularity. This request thus seeks discovery of evidentiary details beyond the purposes recognized by Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This request is denied.

C. Defendant Carlos Rivera's Demand for Bill of Particulars (Joined by Defendant John Morrow)

1. State specifically the identify of all co-conspirators in this case.

Defendants Carlos Rivera and John Morrow are charged in Counts 1, 2, 4, 210-13, 18-19, and 23-24. Counts 1, 2, 4, 10-13, 18-19, and 23-24. Counts 1, 2, 4, 13 and 23 allege that they conspired with others, which Counts 10-12, 18-19, and 24 alleged substantive criminal culpability as a principal or aider and abettor.

As to Counts 1, 2, and 4, the request has been granted as explained in subpart A.1, above.

Count 13 alleges that Morrow and Rivera conspired with four named individuals "and others" to extort bribe money from the video gambling business of Boardwalk Amusements in exchange for the turnover of illegal gambling device component parts that had been seized in a WNYPD raid. This segment is granted, and the United States will be required to identify the "other" conspirators in its Bill of Particulars as to Count 13.

Count 23 alleges that Morrow and Rivera conspired with two named WNYPD officers, and "other officers of the WNYPD" to commit theft of property seized during WNYPD raids and response activity, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 666 (a)(1)(A), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. This request is granted, and the United States will be required to identify the "other officers of the WNYPD" who are conspirators in Count 23.

2. With respect to Racketeering Act 2 and Count 4, state the date within which Carols River [and John Morrow] became a member of the conspiracy. Additionally, state all dollar amounts, dates and locations with respect to extortion payments made by the principals of Boardwalk Amusements paid with their consent.

The first sentence's request is denied. The second sentence's request is also denied for reasons stated in subparts A.2 and B.2, above.

3. With respect to Racketeering Act 10(a) and (b) and Count 10, state the specific date in 1995 wherein a $1,200.00 protections payment was paid. Additionally, state the time and location of the $1,200.00 payment.

4. With respect to Racketeering Act 11(a) and (b) and Count 11, state the specific date in 1996 wherein a $1,200.00 protection payments was paid. Additionally, state the time and location of the $1,200.00 payment.

5. With respect to Racketeering Act 12(a) and (b) and Count 12, state the specific date in 1997 wherein money was paid. Additionally, state the time and location of the alleged $600.00 payment.

Counts 10, 11, and 12 and the related Racketeering Acts pertain to alleged payments of bribe and protection money from Boardwalk Amusements to Morrow and Rivera in 1995, 1996, and 1997, respectively, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2. In contrast to Counts 5-9 (in which Hess allegedly received $800 each month), there is no specification in Counts 10-12 of the number of payments or the amount of each payment to Morrow and Rivera. These requested are granted in part to require the United States to state the specific date or dates in 1995, 1996, and 1997 wherein money was paid under Counts 10-12, and they are denied in part to the extent that the exact time and locations are sought, as these are evidentiary details.

6. With respect to Racketeering Act 13 and Count 13, state the specific dates in and between 1993 and 1996 wherein extortion money was paid for turnover of illegal gambling devices parts. Additionally, state the time, location and dollar amounts of those payments.

Count 13 and Racketeering Act 13 are sufficiently specific in the allegations of the elements of conspiracy under Section 1951(a). The particular payments are not essential to the proof of the conspiracy charge, and the elements of the conspiracy are defined with reasonable particularity. This request thus seeks the discovery of evidentiary details beyond the purposes recognized by Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This request is denied.

7. With respect to Racketeering Act 18(a) and (b) and Count 18, state the specific dates in and between March, 1995 and December, 1995 that extortion and bribery payments were made in connection with a prostitution business and, additionally, state all times, locations and dollar amounts of those payments.

8. With respect to Racketeering Act 19(a) and (b) and Count 19, state the specific dates between January, 1996 and October, 1996 that extortion and bribery payments were made in connection with a prostitution business and, additionally, state all times, locations and dollar amounts of those payments.

Counts 18 and 19 and their related Racketeering Acts are substantive charges of extortion by Morrow and Rivera in allegedly accepting $200 each week in bribe money from co-conspirator Ana Teresa Rodriguez Morales' prostitution business from March, 1995 through December, 1995, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) & 2. These charges are sufficiently specific in alleging the precise amount of these weekly payments. Specification of the exact dates, times, and locations is not required under these circumstances by Rule 7(f). These requests will therefore be denied.

The accompanying Order will be entered consistent with this Opinion.

JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge

ORDER

This matter came before the court upon motions for a bill of particulars on behalf of defendants Richard Hess, Arthur Pena, John Morrow, and Carlos Rivera; and

Having heard oral arguments on January 22, 1999; and

For good cause shown, pursuant to Rule 7(f), Fed. R. Crim. P., for reasons stated in the Opinion of today's date;

IT IS this day of February, 1999 hereby

ORDERED that these motions are granted in part and denied in part, and that the United States shall, within seven (7) days hereof, serve a Bill of Particulars which, at a minimum, states with greater specificity the following allegations:

Count 1: Identify the "other" conspirators in ¶ 44.

Count 2: Identify the "other" RICO co-conspirators in ¶ 2.

Count 3 (and Racketeering Acts 1(a) and (b)): Identify the "other" conspirators in ¶ 2; also, state names of the alleged victims and the dates, locations, and dollar amounts of the bribes.

Count 4 (and Racketeering Act 2): Identify the "other" conspirators in ¶ 2.

Counts 5-9 (and Racketeering Acts 3, 4, 5a & b, 6a & b, 7a & b, 8a & b, and 9a & b): No change required.

Counts 10-12 (Racketeering Acts 10-12): State the specific date or dates wherein the money was paid in 1995, 1997, and 1997, respectively.

Count 13 (and Racketeering Act 13): Identify the "other conspirators.

Count 14, 16 & 17 (and Racketeering Acts 14, 16 & 17): Identify the "other" conspirators.

Count 15 (and Racketeering Act 15): Specify the amount or amounts of payments and the identify of the person to whom the Funhouse proceeds were allegedly paid.

Counts 18 & 19 (and Racketeering Acts 18a & b, and 19a & b): No change required.

Counts 20, 21 & 22 (and Racketeering Acts 20a & b, 21a & b, and 22a & b): Identify the name of the after-hours business and its owner who allegedly consented to such payments.

Count 23: Identify the "other" conspirators.

Count 24: No change requested.

Counts 25 & 26: No change requested.

JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge

19990223

© 2000 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.