United States v. Giovinco, 20-2143-cr

Background

Frank Giovinco, a purported Genovese Crime Family member, was convicted after a five‑day jury trial of RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) and conspiracy to commit extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) for schemes to control Local 1‑D and Local 2‑D of the UFCW; district court sentenced him principally to 48 months’ imprisonment.
The government’s proof included cooperating witnesses, recorded conversations, law‑enforcement expert testimony, and a stipulation describing Giovinco’s prior New York conviction for attempted enterprise corruption (involving extortion in the carting industry).
Giovinco appealed challenging three evidentiary rulings (admission of his prior conviction, lay witnesses’ testimony about his mob membership, and SA John Carillo’s expert testimony) and the sufficiency of the evidence for the extortion conspiracy.
The district court admitted the prior conviction as background and as direct evidence of enterprise involvement, allowed cooperating witnesses to testify about their perceptions of Giovinco’s membership, and admitted Carillo’s testimony about organized‑crime structure and methods.
The Second Circuit reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and sufficiency claims de novo, and affirmed the conviction in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of prior state conviction	Gov't: conviction was inextricably intertwined with charged RICO/extortion conduct and showed enterprise participation	Giovinco: prior conviction irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403/404(b)	Admitted — court found it necessary background and direct evidence of enterprise; 403 balance not abused; limiting instruction given
Lay witnesses testifying to Giovinco’s mob membership	Gov't: witnesses had first‑hand perceptions supporting opinion testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 701	Giovinco: witnesses’ statements were improper lay opinion, not based on personal perception	Admitted — testimony was rationally based on each witness’s firsthand interactions and observations
Expert testimony by SA John Carillo	Gov't: expert could explain structure, terminology, and typical union schemes to help jurors (Rule 702)	Giovinco: expert improperly opined on facts in issue and mirrored fact witness testimony	Admitted — testimony was proper background on organized‑crime operation; did not refer to Giovinco or the specific charged acts
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit extortion	Gov't: recordings, witness testimony, payments, threats, and enterprise reputation support conviction	Giovinco: evidence insufficient to show threats or fear inducing payments	Affirmed — viewed in government’s favor, record supported jury inference of conspiracy to extort via threats/exploitation of fear

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Matera, 489 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (uncharged crimes may prove existence of RICO enterprise)
United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2012) (background evidence admissible when inextricably intertwined or needed to complete the story)
United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (uncharged conduct may be treated as part of the act charged)
United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785 (2d Cir. 1994) (prior conduct admissible as direct evidence of conspiracy)
United States v. Yannotti, 541 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2008) (lay opinion admissible when based on firsthand knowledge)
United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir. 1993) (expert testimony proper to explain organized‑crime structure)
United States v. Amuso, 21 F.3d 1251 (2d Cir. 1994) (expert may explain mafia operation and terminology; overlap with fact testimony not dispositive)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2012) (jury may consider enterprise’s reputation for violence in assessing whether payments were induced by fear)