Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

U.S. v. DiPIETRO

August 3, 2005.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ANGELO DIPIETRO ET. AL., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRLEY KRAM, Senior District Judge

OPINION & ORDER

After approximately ten weeks of trial and four days of deliberations, a jury found the five defendants in this matter guilty on July 12, 2005.*fn1 The defendants now move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Fed.R. Crim. P.") 29(c), for a post-conviction judgment of acquittal. Additionally, defendant Angelo DiPietro moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, for a new trial.*fn2

Rule 29(c) Motions

  In support of their Rule 29(c) motions, the defendants make the following arguments: Harold Bringman

  Bringman's Rule 29 motion is based on five grounds: (1) as to Counts Two and Five, the evidence was insufficient, both factually and legally, to convict him; (2) the Court's instruction on Count Ten was erroneous; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction on Count Ten; (4) the evidence was insufficient on Counts Fourteen and Fifteen; and (5) bodywire evidence introduced against Bringman was not properly authenticated.

  Angelo Capalbo

  Capalbo's Rule 29 motion is based on two contentions: (1) the Court's jury instructions with respect to Count 10 were "fatally flawed;" and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Hobbs Act (and the corresponding conspiracy counts) because the Government failed to prove the existence of interstate commerce, as is required by the statute. See Capalbo July 25, 2005 Letter at 1-4.

  Angelo DiPietro

  DiPietro's Rule 29 motion is also based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, DiPietro contends that "the jury was thus presented only with the testimony of motivated cooperating witnesses and professionally biased government agents, whose allegations were uncorroborated by physical evidence." DiPietro July 29, 2005 Letter at 2.

  Joseph Genua

  Genua joins in the submissions of his co-defendants, but does not raise any independent arguments.

  Michael Pizzuti

  Pizzuti's Rule 29 motion is based on three arguments: (1) the Court's jury instruction with respect to Count 10 was "patently erroneous;" (2) the evidence was insufficient against Pizzuti on Counts Two and Five;*fn3 and (3) there was no evidence that the rifle involved in Count Six "was capable of firing ...


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.