moved to suppress all evidence presented against them at trial on
the grounds that the Government obtained its evidence against
them by the use of illegal electronic eavesdropping. After a full
hearing on this issue, this court is of the opinion that these
motions are without foundation.
The Government has admitted that it conducted electronic
surveillance of certain conversations of the moving defendants in
1963 and 1964. Copies of logs have been turned over to each of
these defendants with respect to their monitored conversations.
In accordance with the Supreme Court's directives in Alderman v.
United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969),
all agents of the Government who participated in the
investigation of this case were made available to these
defendants for cross-examination on the issue of the origin of
the evidence adduced at trial by the Government.
The defendants have not shown that the investigations conducted
by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal
Revenue Service focused on their loan-sharking or juice
activities as a result of governmental exploitation of the
electronic eavesdropping sources in question. By the affidavit
and testimony of Special Agent Leonard Wolf, who was the
supervising agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the
preparation of this case, the Government has shown that the
evidence it adduced at trial was derived from sources entirely
and completely independent from the electronic eavesdropping
which occurred more than four years before the investigation
leading to this indictment was commenced. The sources of the
Government's evidence consisted primarily of information provided
by live informants and from visual surveillance conducted by the
F.B.I. during the year 1968. The court therefore finds that the
Government has carried its burden in showing beyond a reasonable
doubt that the evidence it introduced at trial was not tainted by
illegal electronic eavesdropping.
Consistent with the standards set by the Supreme Court in the
Alderman decision, the defendants have the burden of coming
forward with specific evidence of taint. This they have clearly
failed to do. The defendants have relied on the tenuous
speculation that the evidence adduced against them at trial was
tainted merely because they had previously been the subjects of
illegal electronic surveillance, and that activities similar to
those charged in the indictment were disclosed in the monitored
conversations. The defendants have not shown that any witness at
trial or item of evidence introduced by the Government was
procured as a result of the electronic surveillance in question.
The fact that these defendants were once the subjects of
electronic monitoring does not forever immunize them from
prosecution for any and all criminal activities revealed in such
a surveillance. Rather, the Alderman decision and its progeny
preclude the Government from exploiting information gained by the
use of illegal electronic surveillance as an evidentiary basis
for prosecuting persons subjected to such monitoring. The
defendants must show a connection between the overhead
conversations and the case made against them. In doing so, they
may not rely on speculation and tenuous generalizations, as these
defendants have done. United States v. Alderisio, 424 F.2d 20
(10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Nolan, 420 F.2d 552 (5th Cir.
1969); United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir.
The motions of the defendants Steve Annoreno, Albert Milstein,
and Louis De Riggi to suppress the evidence introduced against
them at trial are therefore denied.
It is further ordered that judgment be, and it is hereby
entered on the verdicts of the jury.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.