Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Smith

decided: July 13, 1972.


Friendly, Chief Judge, and Lumbard and Mulligan, Circuit Judges.

Author: Mulligan

MULLIGAN, Circuit Judge:

These are appeals from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 5, 1972. Appellants Jesse Smith and Rocco Lauria were convicted of conspiring to use extortionate means to collect an extension of credit in violation of the federal loan sharking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 894,*fn1 and each was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The appellants waived their right to a jury trial and stipulated that the court could consider the statements of the government witnesses plus exhibits referred to in the statements as all of the evidence in the case as if the same had been presented in open court at a trial before the court sitting without a jury. The apparent reason for this procedure was that the defendants did not contest the facts but relied on the contention that the prosecution violated the ex post facto clause of the constitution (Art. I, § 9 cl. 3) and the due process provision of the fifth amendment. Judge Anthony J. Travia in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, United States v. Carvelli, 340 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D.N.Y.1972), found the defendants guilty of the conspiracy count but dismissed the eight substantive counts.*fn2 We affirm the judgments of conviction.

After Howard Clyde purchased an auto repair shop, he encountered serious financial problems and soon became the victim of a sordid loan sharking operation in October, 1967. He initially borrowed $1250 from Lauria whose collector was Carvelli.*fn3 The "vig" (vigorish or excessive interest) was $1000 with weekly payments scheduled to terminate in February, 1968. Clyde was still deeply in debt and in January, 1968 he was advised by one Lombardi, who initially acted as a collector for appellant Smith, that a $2000 loan might be possible if Smith was agreeable. Carvelli was disturbed by the prospect of losing this business, and the problem was solved by Carvelli providing Clyde with $2000 with Lauria and Smith each providing a $1000 investment. The terms of this deal were that the hapless Clyde was to pay back $6000 over a 40 week period so that the "vig" was a mere $4000. Carvelli gradually emerged as the sole collector for both Lauria and Smith, visiting Clyde's shop every week in February and March of 1968 accompanied by either one of the appellants. On April 10, 1968 Smith and Lauria accompanied Carvelli to Clyde's shop, and Lauria claimed that he was still owed an installment on his half of the loan. Both Lauria and Smith threatened at this time to burn down Clyde's shop as well as his home if he didn't pay. The appellants further stated that Carvelli was to collect all future payments in cash. Mrs. Clyde came into the shop and was menaced by Lauria. Clyde at this point was financially desperate. He was forced to sell his shop and find other employment which he sought to hide from the appellants.

On May 8, 1968 Lauria and Smith came to Clyde's home in his absence and told Mrs. Clyde, "We intend to collect our money." Smith commented that he knew where Clyde was working and where the children were attending school. Smith, noticing that the Clyde's four year old child had a bandaged arm, remarked "It would be bad if something of this sort happened to his face." The Clydes were now in utter fear and determined to continue the payments at all costs. However, Carvelli was asked never to come to the house, and an arrangement was made to make future payments at a local cocktail lounge where Carvelli was employed.

Up to this point, no matter how revolting and repugnant the conduct of the appellants and even though criminal under state law,*fn4 it was not violative of any federal law. The Consumer Credit Protection Act did not become effective until May 29, 1968. In view therefore of the ex post facto problem it becomes crucial to examine the events which transpired after the effective date of the statute.

On or about May 30, June 6, June 13, June 20, June 27, July 3, July 10 and July 17, 1968, Mrs. Clyde made cash payments to Carvelli at the Cadillac Lounge in Smithtown, New York. Mrs. Clyde was usually accompanied by a friend because of her nervousness and apprehension.

Before the end of the school year the Clydes sent their children to reside with out-of-state relatives. In late July, 1968 the Clydes fled from their home in the middle of the night to escape further payments and possible harm.

Carvelli turned over his weekly cash collections to either Smith or Lauria, whoever came to his bar first. Smith complained about not getting his full share, and both Smith and Lauria separately advised Carvelli that they would have to get together to straighten the matter out. In the summer of 1968, after the Clydes had fled from their home, Smith stated to Carvelli, "I got left holding the bag."

The principal contention of the appellants here is that since the agreement between Smith and Lauria with Clyde as well as the actual threats made by them against the Clydes, all predated the effective date of the statute and hence were federally "innocent", their poststatutory behavior was insufficient to establish a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 894. We cannot agree.

The contention that the agreement by Lauria and Smith to make loans at usurious rates was entered into prior to the effective date of the statute while true, is not pertinent. The appellants were not charged or convicted of entering into an illicit agreement but rather of conspiring to collect extensions of credit by extortionate means. Mr. Justice Holmes a long time ago distinguished between the transitory character of an agreement and the continuous nature of the conspiracy which follows. In differentiating between a contract in restraint of trade and a conspiracy in restraint of trade, he pointed out, "A conspiracy is constituted by an agreement, it is true, but it is the result of the agreement, rather than the agreement itself, just as a partnership, although constituted by a contract, is not the contract, but is a result of it. The contract is instantaneous, the partnership may endure as one and the same partnership for years. A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes." United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 608, 31 S. Ct. 124, 126, 54 L. Ed. 1168 (1910). The distinction between the agreement giving rise to the enterprise and the conspiracy which ensues and is continuous until the criminal purpose has been achieved is well understood. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-647, 66 S. Ct. 1180, 90 L. Ed. 1489 (1946); Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369, 32 S. Ct. 793, 56 L. Ed. 1114 (1912); Developments in the Law -- Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 920, 926 (1959).

It is well established that evidence of the prestatutory behavior of the conspirators even though innocent is admissible. In United States v. Ferrara, 458 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1972) this court considered an appeal from a conviction of a conspiracy to violate a 1959 Taft-Hartley Act amendment, 29 U.S.C. § 186. The court held,

"Furthermore, the trial judge did not commit reversible error in admitting evidence relating to the period before the statute was amended. Such evidence was admissible to show the existence and purpose of the conspiracy, as well as to prove the intent and purpose of the conspirators' later acts. In view of the fact that the conspiracy continued long after 1959, evidence of prior acts was both admissible and necessary to enable the trial judge to appreciate fully the reasons for the payments made after 1959." Id. at 874.

Accord, United States v. Binder, 453 F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 920, 92 S. Ct. 2458, 32 L. Ed. 2d 805 (U.S.1972); United States v. Russo, 442 F.2d 498, 501 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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