John J. Flood   Bio & Jim McGough (Biography)
6304 N Francisco Av
Chicago. Il 60659



641 F.2d 47, *; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19851, **;
107 L.R.R.M. 2288; 107 L.R.R.M. 228

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony M. SCOTTO and Anthony Anastasio, Appellant

Nos. 1131, 1132, Dockets 80-1041, 80-1044


641 F.2d 47; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 19851; 107 L.R.R.M. 2288; 107 L.R.R.M. 228; 89 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12,285

May 20, 1980, Argued  
March 6, 1980

COUNSEL:  [**1] 

Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D. C. (Williams & Connolly, Harold Ungar, Richard M. Cooper, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant Scotto.

Michael E. Tigar, Washington, D. C. (John Mage, Lynne Bernabei, Washington, D. C., Gustave H. Newman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant Anastasio.

Alan Levine, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (William M. Tendy, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, Scott W. Muller, Howard W. Goldstein, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

JUDGES: Before OAKES and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, District Judge. n*

* Senior District Judge of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.


OPINION:  [*58] 


Treating appellant's motion under Rule 8(b) as properly and timely made, it was properly denied. This is true because, as required by Rule 8(b), the appellants were "alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses." "All of the defendants need not be charged in each count." Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b). As Judge Stewart  [**2]  pointed out in his memorandum decision, No. 79 Cr. 32 at 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 1980), appellant Anastasio was named alone in twenty counts out of sixty and jointly with appellant Scotto in three substantive counts. Also, Count 50, which charges them with conspiracy, incorporated the allegations in Counts 35-49 (all of which name  [*59]  appellant Anastasio) as "describing some of the means by which the defendants committed the offenses charged."

Put another way, appellant would have no objection under Rule 8(b) if the counts involving Scotto alone (1-34 and Scotto's income tax counts) had been severed (under Rule 14 or otherwise), thereby resulting in two trials for Scotto. But these counts were part of the series of acts committed by Scotto constituting offenses in a substantial number of which Anastasio directly participated and as to a substantial number of which he conspired.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is denied.

IPSN  1997-2006 All Rights reserved. Not for republication on the internet without permission.