From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Salemme

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jun 27, 1997
978 F. Supp. 390 (D. Mass. 1997)

Opinion

Cr. Nos. 94-10287, 97-10009.

June 27, 1997.

Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, for Robert P. Deluca.

MaryEllen Kelleher, Law Office of Richard Egbert, Law Office of Richard Egbert, Boston, MA, Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, for Francis P. Salemme, Sr.

Kenneth J. Fishman, Bailey, Fishman Leonard, Boston, Ma, Richard M. Egbert, Boston, MA, for Stephen J. Flemmi.

Sean E. Curran, Manchester, NH, for George Kaufman.

Michael C. Bourbeau, Boston, MA, Robert A. George, Boston, MA, Paul J. Haley, Law Office of Paul J. Haley, Hillsborough, NH, for James M. Martorano.

Martin G. Weinberg, Oteri, Weinberg Lawson, Boston, MA, Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, for John V. Martorano.

Fred M. Wyshak, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for U.S.


ORDER


On June 18, 1997, Angelo "Sonny" Mercurio responded to an inquiry by the court and acknowledged that he was cooperating with the government in connection with the October 29, 1989 La Cosa Nostra induction ceremony he attended at 34 Guild Street, Medford, Massachusetts that was electronically surveilled. On June 20, 1997, the Acting Deputy Attorney General ("ADAG"), Seth P. Waxman, responded to the court's Orders by stating that Robert Donati had not been a confidential source of information for any agency, attorney or agent of the Department of Justice. While defendants continue to believe that the Department of Justice may have received information from Donati that was relevant to the October 27, 1989 application for a roving bug through a state law enforcement agency, they correctly agree that their June 4, 1997 motion that Mr. Waxman be held in civil contempt for his failure to respond to the court's Orders to disclose whether Mercurio and/or Donati was an informant for the Department of Justice is now moot. This conclusion is, however, subject to the usual duty the ADAG has to supplement his prior response concerning Donati if the Department of Justice learns that it was inaccurate.

As stated during the ongoing hearings, recent developments have caused the court to defer addressing the motion to suppress the December 11, 1991 electronic surveillance conducted at the Hilton Hotel. Thus, no action is now being taken on defendants' motion that Mr. Waxman be held in civil contempt to the extent that it relates to that electronic surveillance.


Summaries of

United States v. Salemme

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jun 27, 1997
978 F. Supp. 390 (D. Mass. 1997)
Case details for

United States v. Salemme

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America v. Francis J. SALEMME, et al.; UNITED STATES of…

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Jun 27, 1997

Citations

978 F. Supp. 390 (D. Mass. 1997)

Citing Cases

Application for Interception of Wire Comm.

With a caution born out of these revelations, the Court predicated its own order in this case on the…

U.S. v. Salemme

In response to a renewed Order, id. at 385, the Acting Deputy Attorney General revised his refusal to address…