United States District Court, S.D. New York
July 6, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ANGELO DIPIETRO ET. AL., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRLEY KRAM, Senior District Judge
OPINION & ORDER
In keeping with a predictable trend, Defendant Angelo DiPietro
moves for a mistrial. This time, DiPietro contends that, in
violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(d), he was not
given a chance to object to several parts of the jury
instructions after the charge had been given.*fn1
Specifically, DiPietro argues that he was not given an
opportunity to object to: 1) "the Court's failure to include
certain language in the definition of `extortionate means'"; 2)
the Court's failure to rule on his `missing witness' request; and
3) the Court's indication, at page 105 of the charge, that DiPietro did not object to the use of
audiotape evidence.*fn2 The objections are baseless.
First, in case the Court's July 5, 2005 Order (from yesterday)
was not clear, the Court declined DiPietro's application for the
additional `extortionate means' language, finding that it would
be more confusing than illuminative.*fn3 Second, the
defendants have made previous requests for a `missing witness'
charge. The Court's decision not to include that specific charge,
as indicated to counsel, reflected its decision that the previous
requests were inappropriate.
DiPietro's objections are not only re-argument of previous
decisions, they are substantively without merit, as they were
when first raised. The motion for a mistrial is denied. SO ORDERED.