United States v. D'Anna
2:13-cr-20119
E.D. Mich.Apr 29, 2015Background
- Indictment (Feb 13, 2013) charges Guiseppe and Girolamo D’Anna with Hobbs Act extortion and conspiracy for threatening the owner of Noona’s Kitchen (Shelby Township, MI) allegedly to shut the competing restaurant; one victim was beaten April 28, 2011.
- Government alleges defendants used reputation tied to a Sicilian Mafia family to intimidate victims; defendants previously operated a nearby restaurant (Tira Mi Su).
- Government sought to admit prior bad acts (circa 1995) under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) involving threats to a Confidential Witness who left their employment.
- Defendants moved for a bill of particulars (seeking details including what property was obtained), for additional discovery (Brady/Giglio/Jencks/Rule 16), to dismiss the indictment (arguing Hobbs Act extortion requires "obtaining" property), to exclude an FBI agent’s expert testimony about the Sicilian Mafia (Daubert), and to compel a third‑party attorney’s documents via subpoena duces tecum.
- Court rulings summarized: 404(b) evidence conditionally admitted if government makes a sufficient proffer at trial; bill of particulars granted limited to specifying what property was obtained/attempted to be obtained; discovery motion denied without prejudice/moot as to scheduling of Jencks; dismissal denied without prejudice pending government’s bill; expert testimony admissible in principle if tied to testimonial need; subpoena to counsel quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) | Prior threats (1995) show motive/pattern and are admissible for non‑character purposes | Unidentified CW‑1; prejudicial and lacks sufficient proof | Granted conditionally — gov’t must proffer witness identity/relationship and specifics at trial before admission |
| Bill of particulars re: Hobbs Act interstate commerce and property element | Indictment adequately alleges de minimis interstate commerce impact from threats to close a business | Indictment lacks specificity, especially fails to allege what property was obtained/attempted | Granted in part: interstate commerce alleged sufficiently; government must state what property was obtained/attempted to be obtained |
| Discovery / Jencks / Brady timing | Government complied with discovery and will produce Jencks material per rules; will provide certain materials ~3 weeks pretrial | Defendants want earlier disclosure of witness IDs, grand jury materials, medical/financial records, impeachment material | Denied without prejudice (discovery obligations recognized; Jencks material not required pretestimony; scheduling okay per gov’t representations) |
| Expert testimony on Sicilian Mafia (Daubert/Rule 702) | Agent Russo’s specialized background is relevant to explain coded phrases and Mafia structure; not asserting defendants’ membership | Testimony unnecessary; statements are plain and do not require expert interpretation | Denied without prejudice to exclusion: expert admissible in principle if testimony limited to general Mafia structure/coded language and tied to witness statements and facts linking defendants to Sicilian families |
| Subpoena duces tecum to defense counsel for victims’ attorney | Defendants seek retainer and communications to impeach witnesses or probe dealings with prosecutors | Government argues Rule 17(c) not for discovery; materials irrelevant or for impeachment only | Subpoena quashed — defendants failed to show materials are evidentiary/relevant beyond impeachment; Rule 17(c) protections apply |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735 (6th Cir.) (use of other‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b) discussed)
- United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (three‑step 404(b) admissibility inquiry)
- Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (Supreme Court) (Hobbs Act requires proof of "obtaining" property for extortion)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court) (Daubert factors apply flexibly to non‑scientific expert testimony)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court) (indictment sufficiency standards)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (Supreme Court) (limits and uses of subpoenas for trial evidence)
- United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275 (6th Cir.) (no general right to pretrial production of impeachment/Jencks material)
- United States v. Ostrander, 411 F.3d 684 (6th Cir.) (Hobbs Act interstate commerce element discussion)
- United States v. Wang, 222 F.3d 234 (6th Cir.) (robbery/extortion interstate commerce application)