United States v. Frank Locascio, and John Gotti
37 Fed. R. Serv. 1148, 6 F.3d 924, 127 A.L.R. Fed. 599 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court has broad discretion to disqualify a criminal defendant's chosen counsel, over the defendant's objection, where there is a serious potential for a conflict of interest that would undermine the integrity of the judicial process, such as the attorney acting as an 'unsworn witness' or as 'house counsel' for a criminal enterprise.
Facts:
- John Gotti was the head of the Gambino Crime Family, an extensive criminal organization, with Frank Locascio serving as his 'under-boss'.
- The Gambino Crime Family, under Gotti's leadership, was involved in numerous criminal activities including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, illegal gambling operations, and loansharking.
- Bruce Cutler, Gotti's attorney in previous trials, was present during and participated in secretly recorded conversations with Gotti and others where illegal activities were discussed.
- Taped conversations indicated that Gotti made 'benefactor payments' to Cutler, paying for the legal representation of other members of the Gambino Crime Family, suggesting Cutler served as 'house counsel' to the enterprise.
- Taped conversations also captured Gotti implying he had paid Cutler money 'under the table', potentially implicating Cutler in Gotti's alleged tax fraud.
- Attorney George Santangelo represented various members of the Gambino Crime Family, and the government proffered evidence that Gotti controlled Santangelo and assigned him to represent other members of the organization.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York returned a superseding indictment against John Gotti and Frank Locascio.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in the district court to disqualify Gotti's counsel, Bruce Cutler, and Locascio's counsel, George Santangelo, due to conflicts of interest.
- The district court granted the government's motion, disqualifying both attorneys.
- The district court denied Locascio's motion to sever his trial from Gotti's.
- After a jury trial, Gotti was convicted on all counts, and Locascio was convicted on all but one count.
- The district court sentenced both defendants to life in prison.
- Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which the district court denied.
- Gotti and Locascio appealed their convictions and the denial of their new trial motion 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 district court abuse its discretion by disqualifying a defendant's chosen counsel when there is a serious potential for a conflict of interest, such as the attorney acting as 'house counsel' for a criminal enterprise or as an 'unsworn witness' due to their involvement in the events at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Altimari, J.
No, a district court does not abuse its discretion by disqualifying counsel in such circumstances. While a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel of their choice, this right is not absolute and may be overcome by a showing of an actual or potentially serious conflict of interest. The court has an independent interest in ensuring trials are conducted ethically and appear fair. Here, the disqualification of Gotti's attorney, Bruce Cutler, was justified because his role as 'house counsel' for the Gambino enterprise was evidence of the criminal enterprise itself, creating an irreconcilable conflict. More importantly, Cutler's presence at conversations where illegal acts were discussed made him a potential 'unsworn witness'; his arguments to the jury about the meaning of taped conversations would be given undue weight because of his firsthand knowledge, yet he would not be subject to an oath or cross-examination, thus impairing the factfinding process. Similarly, the disqualification of Locascio's attorney, George Santangelo, was proper based on evidence that he also served as house counsel, was answerable to Gotti, and thus could not properly serve Locascio without divided loyalties.
Concurring - Kearse, J.
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion, but the majority's analysis of the jury instructions is too lenient. The trial court's instructions on the § 1959 counts were flawed because it lapsed into using the vague shorthand phrase 'in aid of racketeering,' which omitted the essential statutory element that the defendant must have acted for the purpose of 'maintaining or increasing his position' in the enterprise. This was an inaccurate statement of the law that could have confused the jury. However, because the defendants failed to object to this flawed instruction at trial, the error is not a 'plain error' that would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, despite the flawed instructions, the convictions should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the trial court's substantial latitude in disqualifying defense counsel to protect the integrity of the judicial process, even against a defendant's wishes. It establishes that an attorney's deep entanglement in a client's affairs can create a serious potential for conflict, transforming the attorney into an 'unsworn witness' and justifying disqualification. The decision serves as a major precedent in organized crime cases, providing a basis for prosecutors to remove defense attorneys who have acted as 'house counsel' to a criminal enterprise, thereby limiting the ability of kingpins to control the legal defense of their subordinates. It firmly balances the defendant's qualified Sixth Amendment right to chosen counsel against the court's overriding interest in a fair and ethical trial.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Frank Locascio, and John Gotti