History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Coppola
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2854
| 2d Cir. | 2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Coppola, a Genovese family captain, was convicted of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy based on three predicates; Racketeering Act One targeted extortion and wire fraud related to control of ILA Local 1235 and collective bargaining power on the NYC waterfront; Racketeering Act Two involved a 1977 murder; Racketeering Act Three involved fraudulent identification documents.
  • The government focused on extortion of Local 1235 members (tangible and intangible property) and on the use of false identifications to maintain fugitivity and continue enterprise activities during a long-running scheme.
  • The district court held that LMRDA §501(a) rights (intangible property) can be the basis for Hobbs Act extortion when obtained through extortion, and that tangible property (e.g., union salaries and tribute payments) can also be extorted, with loss estimated at at least $2.5 million.
  • Coppola’s attempts to evade law enforcement (fugitive status) and through consorts obtaining false documents were connected to and continued the Genovese enterprise’s control over Local 1235 and other waterfront interests for decades.
  • The sentence was non-Guidelines, structured to reflect the broader value of the racketeering conduct; the district court reasoned that racketeering guidelines do not fully capture the crime’s significance and imposed concurrent sixteen-year terms, to run with an undischarged 42-month harboring sentence.
  • The Second Circuit affirmed, ruling that the Hobbs Act extortion of intangible LMRDA rights remains valid post-Skilling, evidence was sufficient for extortion and pattern, and the district court did not abuse its discretion on evidentiary or sentencing matters.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Validity of extortion under Hobbs Act post-Skilling Coppola argues intangible LMRDA rights are too vague post-Skilling Gotti prior precedent supports intangible LMRDA rights as Hobbs Act property Intangible LMRDA rights valid under Hobbs Act notwithstanding Skilling
Sufficiency of extortion subpredicates Evidence insufficient to prove extortion/conspiracy for Local 1235 Evidence supports extortion, including March 6, 2007 conversations Evidence sufficient to prove extortion subpredicates on at least one theory
Pattern of racketeering element Need for a cohesive pattern linking acts to enterprise Predicate acts related to Genovese enterprise; continuity established Sufficiently related to satisfy the pattern element under either vertical or horizontal criteria
Evidentiary and jury-charge challenges Admission of non-specific acts and co-conspirator statements prejudicial Courts properly admitted as enterprise/pattern evidence; charge proper Challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions not reversible error
Sentencing sufficiency and reasonableness Non-Guidelines sentence may be inappropriate given health/age Disparity with comparators; guidelines insufficient Sentence reasonable after balancing §3553(a) factors and district court’s reasoning

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2006) (LMRDA/intangible rights can support Hobbs Act extortion; property beyond tangible)
  • Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (Supreme Court 2010) (Limited honest services due to bribe/kickback concept; does not render LMRDA rights invalid)
  • Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (Harmless error standard for multi-theory verdicts; requires careful review of theories)
  • United States v. Bruno, 383 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2004) (Pattern/enterprise relationship supports related predicates)
  • Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (Harmlessness review for evidentiary error; governs standard of review)
  • United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 1996) (Rule 801(d)(2)(E) conspiracy evidence requires corroboration)
  • H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (Pattern element flexible; relates predicates to an enterprise)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Coppola
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date Published: Feb 14, 2012
Citation: 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2854
Docket Number: 10-65
Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.