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
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT
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
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.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING BY APPELLANT ANTHONY ANASTASIO
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.