United States v. Albertelli
687 F.3d 439
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Gianelli, Albertelli, Iacaboni, and Gisele Albertelli were convicted of racketeering offenses and related crimes arising from a large illegal gambling operation and an arson plot.
- Indictment included hundreds of counts; trial narrowed charges to remaining four defendants with multiple counts of racketeering, illegal gambling, money laundering, extortion, arson, and related conspiracy offenses.
- Pretrial motion challenged initial wiretap authorization under Massachusetts law; district court denied suppression after hearings.
- Trial spanned weeks with extensive wiretap evidence detailing group operations, individual roles, and the arson scheme.
- Sentences: Gianelli 271 months, Albertelli 216 months, Iacaboni 183 months, Gisele 21 months; direct appeals followed addressing wiretap admissibility, expert testimony, privilege, and evidentiary sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wiretap authorization complied with Title III and state law | Gianelli argues lack of valid oversight violated Vitello/D'Amour requirements | Defendants contend DA's oversight was insufficient due to timing and drafting gaps | No reversible error; district court's oversight sufficient and warrant valid under 99(F)(1) |
| Whether Kelsch's interpretive testimony on intercepted calls was proper lay testimony | Interpretations aided jury understanding of cryptic conversations | Interpretations risked confusing jury and invading jury function | Admissible as lay testimony with limits and cautions; no plain error given safeguards |
| Whether Russolillo's testimony on organization and role-in-the-offense was proper | Rolled as specialized gambling knowledge aiding interpretation | Invades jury function by giving organizational roles | Admissible; not plain error; proper limits and cross-examination maintained |
| Whether attorney-client privilege was waived by crime-fraud exception during Strategy discussion | Privilege should shield communications | Discussions occurred in context of planning criminal activity | Privilege waived under crime-fraud exception; communications excluded from privilege |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Iacaboni on arson and gambling counts | Evidence showed Iacaboni participated in arson and gambling schemes | Evidence insufficient to prove participation in certain counts | Evidence sufficient; jury could find participation and conspiracy included Iacaboni |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. York, 572 F.3d 415 (7th Cir. 2009) (reliance on expert-like interpretation in complex evidence)
- United States v. Flores-de-Jesús, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (clarifies admissibility of interpretive testimony)
- United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (admissibility of expert/lay interpreta- tion with safeguards)
- United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2002) (complex conspiracy evidence and interpretation concerns)
- United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011) (limits on interpretive testimony by law enforcement)
- United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (interpretive testimony and admissibility in terrorism/criminal cases)
- United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2008) (application of interpretive testimony with cautionary limits)
- United States v. Grinage, 390 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 2004) (meises-type evaluation of preview testimony)
- United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (limitations on preview witnesses; admissibility guidance)
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (warning against broad preview by case agent; Meises cited)
- United States v. Cao, 471 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006) (necessity of wiretaps when alternatives fail)
- United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319 (1st Cir. 1995) (evidentiary considerations in organized crime)