United States v. Anthony Baratta, Samuel Monastersky, and Rocco Sancinella
397 F.2d 215 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant has constructive possession of narcotics under 21 U.S.C. § 174, triggering the statutory inference of knowledge of illegal importation, if they have a sufficient working relationship with those in physical custody to assure the drugs' production and delivery to a customer.
Facts:
- On July 15, 1963, Samuel Monastersky assured an undercover police officer, George Bermudez, that he would receive a promised quantity of narcotics as soon as Monastersky's 'man comes back from out of town.'
- On July 19, Monastersky introduced Bermudez to Anthony Verzino, who offered to sell Bermudez a quarter kilogram of heroin to resolve a prior bad deal.
- On September 21, during further negotiations, Monastersky called over Rocco Sancinella, who quoted a price of $4,000 for the heroin; Verzino later finalized the price at $3,900.
- On September 23, Sancinella assured Bermudez of the heroin's quality, stating, 'It's 86 per cent.'
- On the night of the sale, September 24, both Monastersky and Sancinella assisted Verzino in counting Bermudez's $3,900 purchase money in a back room.
- During a long delay in the delivery, both Monastersky and Sancinella separately reassured Bermudez that the deal would proceed and that he should wait.
- Verzino identified Anthony Baratta as his 'delivery man'; Baratta was observed meeting with Verzino and handling a package shortly before Verzino delivered the heroin to Bermudez.
- Sancinella stood guard outside a men's room door at Bermudez's request while the purchase money was recounted just prior to the final transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Baratta, Samuel Monastersky, and Rocco Sancinella were indicted in federal district court on one count of conspiracy to violate federal narcotics laws and one count of a substantive violation of those laws.
- The defendants were tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts for all three defendants.
- The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced the defendants to prison terms.
- Baratta, Monastersky, and Sancinella, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's working relationship and sufficient association with those in physical custody of narcotics, which enables the defendant to assure their production to a customer, constitute 'possession' under 21 U.S.C. § 174, thereby triggering the statutory inference of knowledge of illegal importation?
Opinions:
Majority - Gignoux, District Judge
Yes. A defendant may have possession for the purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 174 even without physical custody, so long as the defendant has dominion and control over the narcotics. The court reasoned that 'possession' can be established by demonstrating 'a working relationship or a sufficient association with those having physical custody of the drugs so as to enable [one] to assure their production, without difficulty, to a customer as a matter of course.' In contrast, a 'casual facilitator of a sale' who lacks this ability to assure delivery does not have possession. Here, Sancinella's active participation in negotiations, quoting prices, vouching for quality, and providing assurances demonstrated he was an integral part of the operation. Monastersky's role was even more substantial, as he initiated the deal, participated in negotiations, and consistently assured Bermudez of delivery. This evidence was sufficient to establish that both men had the requisite working relationship and control to constitute constructive possession, thereby supporting the statutory inference that they knew the drugs were illegally imported.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the doctrine of constructive possession in the context of federal narcotics conspiracy cases. By defining possession to include a 'working relationship' that enables an assurance of delivery, the court lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors. It allows for the conviction of key conspirators who orchestrate sales without physically touching the contraband, by enabling the use of the powerful statutory inference of knowledge of illegal importation. This precedent makes it more difficult for high-level participants in a drug operation to insulate themselves from liability simply by avoiding direct physical contact with the narcotics.
