Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States
of America
LISA ZORNBERG
MARK LANPHER
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 29
The Government respectfully submits this motion in limine to apprise the Court
and defense counsel of certain categories evidence that the Government will seek to offer at trial.
As discussed below, the evidence in question is admissible as direct evidence of the charged
offenses, or alternatively, as prior bad act evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) of the Federal
Moscatiello, Sr., (“Moscatiello”) was convicted of committing crimes through his membership in
the Genovese Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra (the “Genovese Family”), including
crimes to defraud the Carpenters Union and other unions; (2) evidence of Olivieri’s association
with the Genovese Family; and (3) evidence of Olivieri’s pre-August 2004 payment of
1
Prior to filing this motion, the Government conferred with defense counsel for Olivieri
about the evidence in question. Defense counsel was unwilling to consent or stipulate to the
admissibility of any of the subject evidence prior to the due date for this motion. Defense
counsel indicated, however, that he would consider the matter further after the Government filed
1
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 29
The first two categories of evidence addressed by this motion relate to the perjury
count charged in Count Twenty-Two of the S6 Indictment. In that count, Olivieri is charged with
making false statements at a December 18, 2007 deposition in the Civil RICO case about his
relationship and dealings with Louis Moscatiello, Sr., a now-deceased member of the Genovese
Family, and James Murray, the owner of On Par. (Indictment ¶ 85). To convict Olivieri of the
charged perjury, the Government must prove that Olivieri (1) knowingly made (2) one or more
materially false declarations (3) under oath (4) in a proceeding before or ancillary to any court of
the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 1623; Leonard B. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury
Instructions - Criminal § 48.03. Olivieri does not appear to contest the third or fourth element,
i.e., that his deposition in the Civil RICO case was taken under oath in a proceeding before or
ancillary to a United States court. But the first two elements of the perjury charge are clearly in
dispute, as reflected by Olivieri’s previously-filed pretrial motions in this case. The first two
categories of proffered evidence are directly relevant to the knowing falsity of Olivieri’s
membership in the Genovese Family, and of Moscatiello’s 2004 conviction of crimes committed
through the Genovese Family against the Carpenters Union and other unions. Such evidence is
directly relevant to proving the materiality element of the perjury court, specifically, to explain
why the Government sought to depose Olivieri in the Civil RICO case, why Judge Haight
its motion. Accordingly, the Government will follow up with defense counsel and advise the
Court if any of the matters raised in this motion have been resolved by the parties.
2
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 29
permitted that deposition, and why Olivieri’s false statements about his relationship with
A. Relevant Background
The events which led to Olivieri’s December 2007 deposition in the Civil RICO
case are detailed in the Government’s Opposition to the Pretrial Motions of Defendants John
Greaney and Joseph Olivieri, dated April 30, 2010 (“Gov. Opp.”), at 24-41, and in attached
Exhibits D through L. This evidence includes, among other things, the Government’s August 23,
2007 written application to Judge Haight setting forth its basis for seeking to depose Olivieri
about his relationship with Moscatiello (“the Application,” Exhibit G), and Judge Haight’s order
As this evidence reflects, the Government sought to depose Olivieri in the Civil
RICO case based largely upon its good-faith belief that Olivieri had a relationship with
Moscatiello, and the fact that Moscatiello had been convicted of committing crimes through his
membership in the Genovese Family against the Carpenters Union (of which Olivieri was a
benefit funds trustee), against Local 530 of the Plasterer’s union (of which Olivieri was likewise
a benefit funds trustee), and against Locals 14 and 15 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers. (See Ex. G). The Government attached to its Application a copy of Moscatiello’s
October 12, 2004 plea agreement with the Government, in which Moscatiello agreed to plead
guilty to six criminal charges – two RICO counts, three conspiracy counts, and an extortion count
– all relating to Moscatiello’s extortion, embezzlement, and defrauding of these unions and/or
their benefit funds “through his membership in the Genovese Organized Crime Family.” (Id.)
Those criminal charges were set forth against Moscatiello in Indictment 03 Cr. 229 (NRB) and
3
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 29
Information S5 03 Cr. 229 (NRB). Moscatiello was convicted of the charges on October 13,
2004, at a consolidated proceeding in which he pled guilty before Judge Buchwald in United
conspiring to commit benefit plan embezzlement and mail fraud, and conspiring to make false
statements in ERISA documents submitted to the District Council Benefit Funds, by allowing a
contractor to violate the terms of its collective bargaining agreement at the Kings County
Hospital expansion project “by, among other things, paying workers off-the-books, employing
non-union workers, not paying workers union-scale wages, and misrepresenting the number of
workers on reports submitted to the District Council and the District Council employee benefit
In permitting the Government to depose Olivieri in the Civil RICO Case, Judge
Haight relied heavily on the fact that Moscatiello had admitted, through his guilty plea, to
conspiring to defraud the District Council Benefit Funds on a jobsite through “precisely the sort
of job site corruption” that was a focus of the pending litigation then before the court. (Ex. I at
2
The Government’s Application to depose Olivieri in the Civil RICO case also cited to
testimony given by Local 14 business manager Joseph Rizzuto, Sr., during the trial of United
States v. Amiccuci, about Olivieri’s and Moscatiello’s efforts to coerce Rizzuto to do the bidding
of the Genovese Family. As discussed below, infra, the Government intends to call Joseph
Rizzuto, Sr., at trial. The Government’s Application also cited a 2005 judicial order in which
United States District Judge John Gleeson disbanded Local 530 of the Plasterer’s Union after
finding that Moscatiello, a Genovese “gangster,” had founded and operated Local 530 through
systemic corruption and organized crime influence. See Gov. Opp., Ex. G at 1-2, n.1 (citing
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York, Local 1974 v. Local 530 of the Operative
Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ Int’l Ass’n, No. 98-CV-7076, 2005 WL 638006, at *3
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2005)). It is undisputed that for a number of years, Olivieri held the position
of Local 530 benefit funds trustee.
4
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 6 of 29
11-12) (quoting Moscatiello’s plea agreement at length). Judge Haight authorized the
Government to depose Olivieri about his contacts with, and knowledge of, Moscatiello or other
organized crime figures relating to corruption on Carpenters Union jobsites. (Exs. I, L).
“never met” with Moscatiello (Indictment ¶ 81(i)); “never made arrangements to see”
Moscatiello (id. ¶ 81(ii)); had no recollection of ever discussing any kind of business with
Moscatiello (id. ¶ 81(iii)); did not recall having any conversations with Moscatiello about the
construction industry (id. ¶ 81(iv)); and did not “have a relationship” with Moscatiello (id. ¶ 8)).
See also Gov. Opp., Exhibit M at 164-177) (attaching deposition testimony). Each of these
B. Discussion
By this motion in limine, we specifically seek to admit (i) Indictment 03 Cr. 229
(NRB) and Information S5 03 Cr. 229 (NRB), charging Moscatiello with committing the above-
described crimes through his membership in the Genovese Family; and (ii) Moscatiello’s
contested issue. For the jury to evaluate whether Olivieri’s false statements about his
relationship with Moscatiello were material to the Civil RICO case – i.e., that truthful responses
by Olivieri could have influenced Judge Haight or the Government in the enforcement of the
3
While Moscatiello’s conviction of these crimes, by itself, establishes Moscatiello’s
membership in the Genovese Family, the Government’s proposed proof of the perjury charge
will also include the testimony of Joseph Rizutto, Sr., Artie Johansen, and FBI Agent Joy Adam,
see infra, each of whom provides additional evidence of Moscatiello’s membership in the
Genovese Family.
5
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 7 of 29
Consent Decree or in matters being litigated in the Civil RICO case (see Court’s Order dated July
29, 2010, at 11, addressing materiality standard) – the jury must be provided with information
about who Moscatiello was, and why the Government sought to depose Olivieri about the
relationship Olivieri had with him. Indeed, if Moscatiello were just some random guy, then
Olivieri’s false testimony about his relationship with Moscatiello might well have been
immaterial to the Civil RICO case. But it was precisely because the Government and Judge
Haight understood Moscatiello not to be some random guy, but rather a Genovese member who
had been convicted of criminal conduct involving the Carpenters Union, that Olivieri’s false
provide the jury with factual context for why Olivieri was deposed in the Civil RICO case. As
indicated, Moscatiello’s membership in the Genovese Family and 2004 convictions were key to
the factual context surrounding the taking of Olivieri’s deposition. It is well established that a
“trial court may admit evidence that does not directly establish an element of the offense charged,
in order to provide background for the events alleged in the indictment. Background evidence
may be admitted to show, for example, the circumstances surrounding the events or to furnish an
explanation of the understanding or intent with which certain acts were performed.” United
States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936 (2d Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d
289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, the complete story of why the Government sought to depose
Olivieri in the Civil RICO case, and why Judge Haight permitted questioning relating to
Moscatiello, goes directly to the materiality element of the charged perjury offense. See United
6
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 8 of 29
(“Evidence of other bad acts may be admitted to provide the jury with the complete story of the
crimes charged by demonstrating the context of certain events relevant to the charged office”)
In particular, the fact that both the Government and Judge Haight cited to
Moscatiello’s conviction of defrauding the District Council Benefit Funds through his
membership in the Genovese Family – as relevant to the deposition of Olivieri in the Civil RICO
case – is proof that Olivieri’s subsequently-given false testimony about Moscatiello was material.
Olivieri was a trustee of the District Council Benefit Funds during the time period of
Moscatiello’s admitted offense conduct, and the Consent Decree expressly prohibited knowing
association with organized crime members or associates. Evidence of whether Olivieri was an
associate of Moscatiello, and had a relationship that in part concerned the Genovese Family’s
efforts to defraud the Carpenters Union and its benefit funds, was thus of obvious relevance to
the Civil RICO case. The Indictment and Information setting forth the criminal charges against
Moscatiello, and his convictions of those charges, were a matter of public record prior to the
Government seeking to depose Olivieri in 2007, and a factor that both Judge Haight and the
Government relied upon (combined with the Government’s good-faith belief that Olivieri had a
Family is directly relevant to the charged perjury offense, and an integral part of the factual
context surrounding Olivieri’s deposition, the probative value of this evidence outweighs any
potential prejudice to Olivieri. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that relevant evidence
“may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
7
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 9 of 29
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is
not excludable under Rule 403 simply because it is “prejudicial.” “What ‘prejudice’ as used in
Rule 403 means is that the admission is, as the rule itself literally requires, ‘unfair’ rather than
‘harmful.’” United States v. Jimenez, 789 F.2d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 1986). “The prejudice that Rule
403 is concerned with involves ‘some adverse effect . . . beyond tending to prove the fact or issue
that justified its admission into evidence.’” United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1139 (2d Cir.
1995) (quoting United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980)). Here, the evidence
the Government seeks to introduce regarding Moscatiello’s Genovese membership and prior
criminal convictions is not unfairly prejudicial, but rather goes to the core of why the
Government deposed Olivieri about his relationship with Moscatiello and why Olivieri’s false
deposition testimony was material to the Civil RICO case. Moreover, the Government has no
objection to the Court providing an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury to minimize any
arguable prejudice.
Moscatiello’s Genovese membership and crimes against the Carpenters Union and other unions.
The most natural way to put in this evidence would be to admit the Government’s August 2007
Application to depose Olivieri, and Judge Haight’s October 2007 permitting the deposition –
both of which cited extensively to Moscatiello’s guilty plea. However, to avoid raising any
potential Confrontation Clause through admission of Moscatiello’s guilty plea, see Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9 (2004), the Government will work with defense counsel over
the coming days in an effort to reach a stipulation as to the admissibility of this evidence. At a
8
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 10 of 29
minimum, the Government will seek to offer the charging instruments against Moscatiello and
his judgments of conviction – neither of which raise any Confrontation Clause issue. The
Government also expects to introduce the testimony of Benjamin Torrance, the Assistant United
States Attorney who was responsible for handling the Civil RICO Case in 2007, and who sought
to depose Olivieri and ultimately took Olivieri’s deposition. AUSA Torrance is expected to
explain to the jury what matters were pending in the Civil RICO case in 2007, and why the
To prove the charged perjury count, the Government will seek to offer evidence of
Olivieri’s association with the Genovese Family. This evidence also constitutes direct proof of
the perjury count. For example, whereas Olivieri testified that he “never met” with Moscatiello,
“never made arrangements to see” Moscatiello, and had no recollection of ever discussing any
business matters with Moscatiello, the Government will seek to introduce evidence
demonstrating that Olivieri in fact met with Moscatiello on multiple occasions, at planned
meetings relating to the business of the Genovese Family. Simply put, evidence of Olivieri’s
association with the Genovese Family is directly probative of (i) the falsity of Olivieri’s sworn
statements about his relationship with Moscatiello, (ii) Olivieri’s knowledge of the falsity of his
statements, and (iii) the materiality of Olivieri’s false statements to the Civil RICO case.
The Government notes that it does not intend to offer every witness and piece of
evidence at its disposal concerning Olivieri’s association with the Genovese Family; rather, the
9
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 11 of 29
with Moscatiello (which necessarily entails an explanation of his ties to the Genovese Family) to
prove the charged perjury offense. Currently, the Government expects to offer: testimony from
two lay witnesses who have personal knowledge of Olivieri’s association with the Genovese
Family and Moscatiello, and who witnessed meetings of Olivieri and Moscatiello; testimony
from law enforcement officers who surveilled meetings of Olivieri and Moscatiello; and a 2004
association with “Louis” [Moscatiello] and Vinny DiNapoli, another Genovese member. A
Union from approximately 1989 through 2000. Prior to that he was president and business agent
of Local 14 from approximately 1974 through 1989. Rizzuto is a cooperating witness of the
Government.4
Rizzuto is expected to testify that the Genovese Family had “claimed” Local 14
and exerted influence over the local for years. Among other things, the Genovese Family
pressured Rizzuto and other union officers to give preferential treatment to Genovese Family
members and associates, and to their relatives, for admission into the local. To keep the mob
happy and at bay, Rizzuto acceded to these requests, and mob-connected individuals were given
membership “books” despite their inability in some cases to operate the equipment covered by
4
Pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the Government, Rizzuto pled guilty to one
count of conspiracy to receive unlawful labor payments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one
count of honest services mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, and 2; and one count
of receiving unlawful labor payments, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 186. In December 2009,
Rizzuto was sentenced to a term of probation.
10
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 12 of 29
the local. Early on, after becoming a business agent, Rizzuto was also alerted by a fellow Local
14 business agent of Vinny DiNapoli’s powerful status within the Genovese Family, and was
directed not to give DiNapoli a hard time on jobsites within Local 14’s jurisdiction. In fact,
Vinny DiNapoli at one point personally recruited Rizutto to become involved in the Genovese
The Genovese Family always had someone acting as its designated contact person
with Local 14, who delivered messages on behalf of the Genovese Family to Rizzuto (and to
Rizzuto’s predecessor). For a short period of time in the late 1990’s, that contact person was
Joseph Olivieri. In or about 1999, Olivieri (who went by the nickname “Rudy”) informed
Rizzuto that he represented the Genovese Family, and visited Rizzuto at the union hall on
multiple occasions. Olivieri approached Rizzuto on at least three or four occasions to obtain
union books for organized-crime connected individuals, including a person Olivieri referred to as
Rizzuto planned to retire from the union in 2000, and for his son (Joseph Rizzuto,
Jr.) to replace him as Local 14’s business manager. As Rizzuto’s anticipated retirement
approached, Olivieri paid Rizzuto a visit to relay the message that the people Olivieri represented
wanted Joe Coriasco – who Rizzuto knew to be connected to organized crime – to be appointed
assistant business manager of the local. Rizzuto resisted, believing that appointment of Coriasco
to an assistant manager position would, among other things, undermine his son’s standing with
the members and the chances of his son being elected business manager. Rizzuto also feared that
appointment of Coriasco to a non-elected, senior officer position would make Local 14’s benefit
funds vulnerable to organized crime influence and embezzlement – something Rizzuto had
11
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 13 of 29
Olivieri returned to the union hall several times to repeat the same message to
Rizzuto, i.e. that the Genovese Family wanted Coriasco appointed assistant business manager.
approached Rizzuto to press the subject again. Olivieri threatened Rizzuto that he (Rizzuto) had
better not forget his obligations to organized crime or he could find himself “in a world of hurt.”
Olivieri also said that Rizzuto now would have to see Olivieri’s “boss.”
Not long thereafter, Olivieri approached Rizzuto at a function hosted by the Wall
& Ceiling Association at a country club on Long Island. Olivieri told Rizzuto they needed to talk
and proceeded to drive Rizzuto to a hotel near LaGuardia Airport, where Olivieri escorted
Rizzuto to a hotel room. When Rizzuto entered the hotel room, Moscatiello was inside waiting
for him. Moscatiello, Olivieri, and Rizzuto were present in the hotel room during this meeting.
Moscatiello physically patted Rizzuto down looking for a wire, commenting that he
(Moscatiello) had once been burned by a union delegate wearing a wire (a true fact that led to
Moscatiello’s prior conviction in state court). Moscatiello then proceeded to discuss with
Rizzuto, in Olivieri’s presence, their desire for Coriasco to be made assistant business manager
of Local 14. Rizzuto convinced Moscatiello, at least for the time being, that everyone would be
Genovese Family’s daily contact person with Local 14. Both Carrara and Olivieri explained to
Rizzuto that Carrara now represented Rizzuto’s “friends.” Rizzuto retired from Local 14 in or
12
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 14 of 29
Nastasi”). For many years, Tommy Nastasi owned and ran Nastasi White Inc., a prominent New
York City drywall contractor. Johansen worked for Nastasi White and ultimately took over
running the company in approximately 1995, after Tommy Nastasi developed cancer and
relationship, with the Genovese Family. Tommy Nastasi was close with both Louis Moscatiello
and Vinny DiNapoli and, for years, Nastasi White made regular cash payments to the Genovese
Family. Tommy Nastasi was also one of the directors of the Wall & Ceiling Association; it was
Nastasi who was responsible for hiring and appointing Joseph Olivieri to the position of
In approximately 1995, when Tommy Nastasi became ill and turned management
of the company over to Johansen, Nastasi told Johansen to continue making monthly payments of
$3,000 to Ralph Coppola, a Genovese Family member, and to go to Coppola for any problems
“on the street.” Johansen did so, and also occasionally communicated with Moscatiello directly.
Johansen also came to personally know Olivieri in the late 1990’s, by serving on the board of the
In or about 1998, Johansen tried to set up a meeting between Olivieri and Ralph
Coppola, at Coppola’s request. Olivieri refused to meet with Coppola, telling Johansen that
Coppola had been “put on the shelf.” Johansen knew this to be wiseguy terminology indicating
13
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 15 of 29
that Coppola was out of favor with the Genovese Family leadership.5 Not long thereafter,
another individual connected to the Genovese Family, Mickey Ragusa, informed Johansen that
he would be taking over collection of the payments previously made to Coppola. In 1999,
purported debt that Moscatiello claimed was owed to Moscatiello’s son. At Moscatiello’s
direction, Johansen made the payments through a company called “Quality Drywall.”
Johansen knew that Moscatiello and Olivieri had a relationship. On at least two
occasions, in approximately 1999 or 2000, Johansen saw Moscatiello and Olivieri meet in the
coffee shop on the ground floor of the Nastasi White building, located in College Point, Queens.
Johansen was not pleased with Moscatiello and Olivieri meeting in Nastasi White’s building,
because of the organized crime implications, and believed they chose that location to meet
because it was mid-way between Olivieri’s office in Hicksville, Long Island, and Moscatiello’s
surveillance outside of Louis Moscatiello’s office in Pelham Bay, Bronx, saw Moscatiello
speaking to man in a blue, Forde Explorer with New York License #T905B. The plates came
back as registered to Joseph Olivieri. Although the officers were unable to identify the man in
the Forde Explorer, given that it was Olivieri’s car, one could reasonably infer that this was a
5
Ralph Coppola disappeared in September 1998 and is presumed dead. To avoid any
potential prejudice to Olivieri, the Government will not elicit that information at trial.
14
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 16 of 29
On July 24, 2000, FBI Agent Dan Conlon surveilled a meeting between Louis
Moscatiello and Olivieri inside Jimmy Ryan’s Bar and Restaurant, located at 3005 Middletown
Road, in the Bronx. The meeting lasted approximately 40 minutes, from 4:15 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.
• “Ford[e] wants somebody. Get it done as fast as possible. (UI) They had
a problem they sent for him”;6
• “I was out on the Island today to see Carl (UI) He’s got a problem with
us”;
• “He’s a sharp kid, if we lose him. He’s our eyes and ears. (UI) Resolve
the problem (UI) If he wants off the job (UI);
• “Take the beef upstairs (UI) Scared the shit out of him”;
• “I don’t want to meet with anybody. I don’t want to meet with anybody. I
don’t want to meet with anybody. (UI) Call the District Council (UI)
Manny (UI) Manny’s gonna come right at you. Taking jobs for cash.”
• “I met with Joey on Friday, called me on Friday (UI) he’s living with his
sister. The whole family is pissed with Artie”
• “I told Mickey (UI) Mickey’s being audited by the IRS. He’s fucked, he
know’s he’s fucked” (to which Olivieri responded “He’s fucked”)
conversation between John “Buster” Ardito, Peter Peluso, and Michael Doris, at Agostino’s
6
The agent’s report wrote the name phonetically as “Ford.” However, the Government
believes this was probably a reference to Michael Forde. “UI” refers to the agents notation of
parts of the conversation that were inaudible.
15
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 17 of 29
restaurant, located at 969 Boston Post Road, in New Rochelle, New York (“the Agostino’s
recording”). Buster Ardito was a captain of the Genovese Family. Peluso was a longtime lawyer
to the Genovese Family and a Genovese associate. Michael Doris was a low-level Genovese
associate. None of the participants to the conversation knew they were being recorded. During
Peluso: And he told me. Rudy, the kid Rudy. The kid who was around Vinny
DiNapoli, in the union. Joe Olivieri. They call him Rudy.
The three men then proceeded to discuss, on tape, Olivieri’s family members and Olivieri’s
former employment with Sony Records (which was in fact Olivieri’s employment before being
The Government intends to call FBI Agent Joy Adam, one of the case agents who
supervised the Agostino’s recording and the FBI’s related investigation into the Genovese
Family, to authenticate the recording, identify the voices on the recording, and identify Ardito,
Peluso and Doris’s affiliations with the Genovese Family. Agent Adam will also testify that the
terminology used during this recorded conversation to describe Olivieri’s relationships with
Vinny DiNapoli and Louis [Moscatiello] – i.e., being “around” DiNapoli and being a “friend of”
organized crime.
B. Discussion
commission of the charged perjury. Whereas Olivieri testified under oath that he had never met
16
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 18 of 29
with Moscatiello, never arranged to meet Mosciatello, and never discussed any business matters
with Moscatiello, the above-proffered evidence shows that Olivieri’s sworn statements were
false, that Olivieri knew his statements were false, and that Olivieri intentionally lied to prevent
the Government and Judge Haight from learning of his actual connection to organized crime,
thus demonstrating the materiality of his false testimony to the Civil RICO case.
In our attempts to confer with defense counsel prior to filing this motion, defense
counsel took the position that any evidence of Olivieri’s association with the Genovese Family
As discussed above, evidence is not excludable under Rule 403 simply because it
tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence.’” Gelzer, 50 F.3d at
1139; Jimenez, 789 F.2d at 171. Here, the evidence the Government seeks to introduce regarding
Olivieri’s organized crime association is not unfairly prejudicial, but rather the core evidence
proving the perjury, i.e., proving that Olivieri knowingly made materially false statements. For
example, Rizzuto’s testimony will establish not only that Olivieri in fact had a relationship with
Moscatiello, but also that Olivieri reported to Moscatiello, and that for a period of time Olivieri
acted as Moscatiello’s and the Genovese Family’s agent in dealing with Local 14. Indeed, when
Olivieri threatened Rizzuto with “a world of hurt” should Rizzuto forget his obligations to
organized crime, Olivieri made that threat on behalf of Moscatiello – as indicated by the fact that
Olivieri then told Rizzuto he would have to see Olivieri’s “boss,” and brought Rizzuto to a hotel
room in which Moscatiello was waiting to discuss the Genovese Family’s desire to influence a
Local 14 union appointment. While such evidence may be damaging to Olivieri’s case – because
17
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 19 of 29
prejudicial.
proof of the charged perjury. Johansen is an eye witness to at least two meetings between
Moscatiello and Olivieri in the Nastasi White building. Evidence of how Johansen knew both
Moscatiello and Olivieri, and context for why Moscatiello and Olivieri met in the Nastasi White
building, is inextricably linked with Johansen’s account of Nastasi White being a mob-connected
company. Johansen should be permitted to explain, among other things, that he knew
Moscatiello through his father-in-law’s and Nastasi White’s longtime relationship with the
Genovese Family, as a part of which Nastasi White had been making payments to the Genovese
Family for years; that he came to know Olivieri after Tommy Nastasi had Olivieri installed as
executive director of the Wall and Ceiling Association7; and that Olivieri was connected to the
Genovese Family and knew that Nastasi White – a signatory contractor of the Carpenters Union –
had a relationship with the Genovese Family too. Johansen’s testimony, like Rizutto’s, goes to
directly to the falsity of Oliviri’s deposition statements, the knowing falsity of those statements,
because it will be incumbent upon the Government at trial to elicit these witnesses’ own
participation in acts relating to the Genovese Family as part of the witnesses’ Giglio and
impeachment material. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); United States v.
7
Board minutes of the Wall and Ceiling Association (which the Government will also
seek to introduce at trial) independently corroborate Johansen’s account that Tommy Nastasi was
responsible for Olivieri’s appointment to the executive director position of the Association.
18
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 20 of 29
Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). Under governing legal precedent, the Government is permitted to
elicit the witnesses’ testimony about these acts “to avoid the appearance that it [is] concealing
impeachment evidence from the jury.” United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir.
1991); United States v. Louis, 814 F.2d 852, 856 (2d Cir. 1987). Any attempt to “sanitize” the
Giglio material by omitting the witnesses’ testimony about their own participation in acts relating
meetings with Moscatiello. In particular, Agent Conlon’s surveillance and overhear of a July
2000 meeting between Moscatiello and Olivieri shows that these men intentionally met at a
restaurant to discuss union-related matters, with Moscatiello directing Olivieri to “call the
District Council” and to get something done “as fast as possible” for “Ford[e].” Moscatiello also
talked to Olivieri about someone who was “taking jobs for cash.” This overheard conversation is
highly probative of the falsity of the Olivieri’s sworn statements denying that he ever arranged to
meet with Moscatiello and did not recall ever discussing the construction industry, or business of
any kind, with Moscatiello. Other portions of the overheard conversation indicate that
Moscatiello used the meeting to update Olivieri on Genovese Family business, including by
telling Olivieri that “Carl” has “got a problem with us”; “Mickey’s being audited by the IRS”; “I
don’t want to meet with anybody”; “The whole family is pissed with Artie.” Even overheard
snippets such as Moscatiello saying “take the beef upstairs” – a wiseguy term for how disputes
among mobsters are resolved by bringing the dispute to individuals higher-up in the organized
crime syndicate – indicate that Olivieri was a trusted associate of Moscatiello privy to affairs of
the Genovese Family, and that Olivieri lied at his deposition by denying the true nature of the
19
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 21 of 29
Also admissible is the 2004 Agostino’s recording in which Buster Ardito and Pete
Peluso discuss Olivieri being “a friend of Louis,” and “around” Vinny DiNapoli. This recording
is highly probative of the perjury charge because it further confirms, out of the mouths of a
Genovese member and associates, that Olivieri was an associate of the Genovese Family at that
time, and specifically an individual associated with Moscatiello and DiNapoli. The statements
are admissible as co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), which provides that an out-
of-court statement “is not hearsay . . . if the [t]he statement is offered against a party and is . . . a
statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). For a statement to be admissible under this rule, the Court must find
by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) there was a conspiracy; (2) its members included the
declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered; and (3) the statement was made [i]
during the course of and [ii] in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Glen v. Bartlett, 98 F.3d 721, 728
Here, the Government will be able to establish, through all of the other proffered
evidence of Olivieri’s association with the Genovese Family, that Ardito, Peluso, and Doris were
Genovese Organized Crime Family. See United States v. Russo, 302 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 2002)
(admitting out-of-court statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) where the statements apprised co-
conspirators of the Colombo Organized Crime Family of the status and relative standing of
various members and associates, because such statements were in furtherance of the “conspiracy
to operate the Colombo family”). In Russo, the Second Circuit recognized that an organized
20
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 22 of 29
crime family “cannot function properly unless its members and persons who do business with it
understand its membership, leadership, and structure.” Id. at 46. Hence, statements by criminal
associates to one another about “membership,” “hierarchy,” “activities of the organized crime
enterprise and the various roles of [defendants] in it” are all statements made “during” and “in
furtherance of” the conspiracy, as are “statements designed to reassure a co-conspirator, maintain
trust and cohesiveness among them, or inform each other of the status of the conspiracy.” Id.
(quoting United States v. Persico, 832 F.2d 705, 716 (2d Cir. 1987). See also United States v.
Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that in organized crime cases, “the relevant
Moreover, it does not matter to the admissibility of the Agostino’s recording that
Olivieri is not charged in the instant Indictment with participating in a conspiracy involving the
Genovese Family. As the Second Circuit has stated: “In Maldonado-Rivera, we held that
although Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) requires proof that both the declarant and the party against
8
In Gigante, the Second Circuit observed that, for a statement to fit within the co-
conspirator exception to the hearsay rules, there must be “a specific criminal conspiracy beyond
the general existence of the Mafia.” 166 F.3d 75, 82. The appellant in Russo seized on this
statement to argue that mere “joint membership in a criminal organization,” such as in one of the
five families of La Cosa Nostra, “can never serve as the basis” for finding the existence of a
conspiracy that is a predicate for applying the co-conspirator exception. Russo, 302 F.3d at 44.
The Second Circuit rejected this reading of Gigante. Id. at 44-47. In Russo, the Second Circuit
clarified that Gigante stands only for the narrow and unremarkable proposition that, where a
statement is offered to prove the defendant’s involvement in a specific crime (in Gigante, a
murder), the defendant’s and the declarant’s joint membership in the Mafia, without more, is
insufficient to justify the admission of the statement for that purpose. Id. In contrast, where, as
here, the statement is offered to show an organized crime syndicate’s “membership, leadership,
structure,” as well as its internal “rivalry and dissension,” the statement is admissible for that
purpose under the co-conspirator exception if the Government can establish, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the declarant and the defendant belonged to the same criminal organization.
Id.
21
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 23 of 29
whom a declaration is offered be members of the same conspiracy, it does not require that the
conspiracy be one charged in the indictment.” United States v. DeVillio, 983 F.2d 1185, 1193
(2d Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 962 (2d Cir. 1990)).
Family is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to rebut any claim by Olivieri that
he lacked the requisite knowledge or intent to commit perjury, and to prove his motive to lie
during his deposition in the Civil RICO case. Evidence of other bad acts is admissible under
Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence if it is (1) advanced for a proper purpose;
(2) relevant to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial; (3) more probative than prejudicial;
and (4) if requested, admitted subject to a limiting instruction. See United States v. Zackson, 12
F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. Ramirez, 894 F.2d 565, 568 (2d Cir. 1990)
(citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)). Under the Second Circuit’s
“inclusionary approach” to the admission of other act evidence, evidence of prior crimes, wrongs
or acts is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity.
United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996). Those requirements are met here.
admissible under Rule 404(b) to show that Olivieri had a motive to lie at his deposition in the
Civil RICO case – namely, a motive to hide from the Government and Judge Haight his
association with the organized crime, to protect both himself and the Genovese Family. Olivieri
of course knew that a chief goal of the Civil RICO case was to eradicate organized crime
influence from the Carpenters Union, and that the Consent Decree prohibited his association with
organized crime members or associates. Had Olivieri truthfully disclosed his association with
22
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 24 of 29
the Genovese Family and Moscatiello, he would effectively have admitted his violation of the
Consent Decree, and jeopardized his longtime and influential positions as a trustee of the District
Council Benefit Funds and executive director of the Wall and Ceiling Association. Accordingly,
evidence of Olivieri’s organized crime association is highly probative of his motive to lie. See
404(b) to show “intent,” “plan,” “knowledge” and “absence of mistake.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
At his sworn deposition, Olivieri repeatedly answered questions about his relationship with
Moscatiello by stating that he did not “recall.” See Indictment ¶ 85 (Olivieri testifying “I don’t
response questions about whether he ever discussed any kind of business with Moscatiello, or
conversed with Moscatiello about the construction industry). Particularly for that reason,
the proffered evidence of Olivieri’s substantial (and entirely memorable) interactions with
Moscatiello relating to the business of the Genovese Family is admissible to show that Olivieri’s
professed lack of recollection was bogus, and part of a plan to avoid answering the questions
truthfully. A juror could easily find, for instance, that Olivieri would not have forgotten his
conduct toward Joseph Rizzuto on behalf of the Genovese Family, which involved Olivieri
threatening Rizzuto and then bringing Rizzuto to a surreptitious meeting with Moscatiello in a
hotel near LaGuardia Airport. See United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1971)
(jury can infer defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of his statements -- including false denials of
the defendant said and did; proof of the objective falsity of the statements; proof of the
23
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 25 of 29
defendant’s motive to lie; and “from other facts tending to show that the defendant really knew
3. Evidence of Olivieri Paying for Union Officers’ Meals and Expenses Prior to August
2004 Should be Admitted
2004, in which Olivieri paid for meals and other expenses of union officers, and seeks an in
limine ruling permitting such testimony. As the Court is aware, Olivieri was initially charged in
Count Seventeen with making unlawful payments to labor representatives from in or about 2002
through in or about 2005, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 186(a)(1) and (d)(2), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Specifically, Olivieri was alleged to have paid tens of thousands of dollars for the meals and
expenses of District Council officers and representatives, including but not limited to Michael
Forde and John Greaney. After Olivieri filed a motion to dismiss a portion of this charge on
statute of limitations grounds, the Government agreed to dismiss voluntarily from Count
Seventeen the payments occurring before August 3, 2004. However, the Government intends to
First, John Greaney is expected to testify that Olivieri would routinely “treat” him and other
union officials to meals, particularly when they were out of town at conventions or other
meetings. Second, the Government intends to offer expense reports completed by Olivieri and
submitted to the Wall and Ceiling Association for reimbursement. Because these expense reports
are voluminous, the Government intends to offer a summary chart, pursuant to Rule 1006,
summarizing the relevant portions of these expense reports, including each instance where
Olivieri indicated on the report that he should be reimbursed for costs expended entertaining
24
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 26 of 29
union officials. The chart will show that Olivieri’s payments began in at least 2002, and
As indicated above, “other acts evidence can be admitted ‘for any purpose other
than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity,’” United States v. Mitchell, 328 F.3d 77, 82 (2d
Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 291 F.3d 127, 136 (2d Cir. 2002)), subject to the
constraint that, “under Rule 403, the probative value of the evidence is not substantially
outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.” United States v. Alli-Balogun, 72 F.3d at 11. “Other
acts evidence” is admissible to prove, among other things, intent, knowledge, opportunity,
preparation, plan, and absence of mistake or accident. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
In this case, evidence that Olivieri made it a practice of making payments to union
officials for years before August 2004, treating them to thousand dollar dinners and other
gratuities, is relevant to his criminal intent and absence of mistake in making similar prohibited
payments after August 2004. Indeed, the fact that Olivieri treated union officials through
prohibited payments as a matter of course for a period of several years supports the notion that he
had a criminal purpose in cultivating his relationship with union officials, and that the post-
The years of pre-August 2004 payments are also admissible under Rule 404(b) to
show the relationship of trust Olivieri was able to develop with Michael Forde, who later assisted
Olivieri in obtaining work with James Murray. Forde and Olivieri are charged co-conspirators in
Count Three of the Indictment (the On Par conspiracy). The Second Circuit has consistently
upheld the admission of evidence of uncharged, prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) to establish and
explain the existence of a relationship between co-conspirators. See United States v. Araujo, 79
25
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 27 of 29
F.3d 7, 8 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding other act evidence admissible to “show the background of . . . a
relationship of trust.”); United States v. Guang, 511 F.3d 110, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2007) (affirming
trial court’s admission of evidence of uncharged bad acts “to demonstrate the existence of a
relationship of mutual trust, or to enable the jury to understand how the illegal relationship
Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 33-34 (2d Cir. 2000) (same); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d
Cir. 1993) (same); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990) (same).
In Count Three, Olivieri and Forde are charged as being co-conspirators, along
with James Murray, Finbar O’Neill and others, in a conspiracy to help On Par cheat the union
benefit funds out of millions of dollars as part of a “you wash my back, I’ll wash yours” culture
of bribes and kickbacks. There is nuance to how such corrupt relationships are formed and
nurtured over time in the construction industry. The development of Olivieri’s illicit relationship
with Michael Forde, which later led to Olivieri’s developement of a relationship with James
Murray, serves as a prime example, and is relevant to the offense charged in Count Three.
Specifically, we expect the evidence to show that, after numerous instances of Olivieri paying for
Forde’s meals and expenses in 2002 and 2003, Forde used his influence to help Olivieri secure
excavation work. Finbar O’Neill – who was delivering cash bribes to Forde during this time
period on behalf of On Par– is expected to testify that, in approximately 2003, Forde introduced
O’Neill to Olivieri at an arranged lunch, at which Forde encouraged O’Neill to help find
excavation work for Olivieri. (Olivieri had an excavation company called DNO Contracting).
O’Neill, in turn, encouraged James Murray to offer excavation work to Olivieri on two non-
union buildings Murray was beginning to construct in Riverdale, New York. Murray is expected
26
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 28 of 29
to testify that he was desirous of developing a closer relationship with Olivieri because he knew
of Olivieri’s influentual position within the Carpenters Union, as a benefit funds trustee and head
of the Wall and Ceiling Association. Accordingly, in 2003, Murray helped to ensure that
Olivieri’s company, DNO, was given the opportunity to bid on the work. DNO was in fact
awarded the excavation contracts on the two buildings, which yielded Olivieri well over $1
million in payments to DNO. Later, Murray further cultivated his relationship with Olivieri by,
charged in Count Three, stemmed in part from Olivieri’s cultivation of his relationship with
Michael Forde – which included Olivieri’s payment for thousands of dollars of Forde’s meals
and expenses while Forde was the head of the union. This evidence shows in real-life, if
nuanced, terms, how individuals within the union and construction industry cultivated corrupt
and trusting relationships to line each of their respective pockets. Proof of Olivieri’s payments of
union officers’ meals and expenses prior to 2004 is thus relevant and admissible “to add context
and dimension” to the Government’s proof of Count Three, and of Olivieri’s co-conspirator
relationships with Forde, James Murray and Finbar O’Neill. See United States v. Gonzalez, 110
F.3d 936 (2d Cir. 1997) (“To be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government’s
case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government’s proof of the charged
crime can have that tendency.”); United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 812 (2d Cir. 1994) (“When
the indictment contains a conspiracy charge, uncharged acts may be admissible as direct evidence
27
Case 1:08-cr-00828-VM Document 194 Filed 08/13/10 Page 29 of 29
Moreover, there is no risk of undue prejudice from the admission of this evidence.
The evidence of Olivieri’s pre-August 2004 payments is certainly no more inflammatory than the
evidence of his post-August 2004 payments. Nor is it any more inflammatory than other
evidence that will be presented at trial. Rather, it is part and parcel with evidence of the culture
of corruption that pervaded the Carpenter’s Union, and Olivieri’s role in it. In any case, any risk
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully requests that the Court
rule in limine: (1) to admit evidence of Louis Moscatiello, Sr.’s membership in the Genovese
Family and convictions of crimes committed through the Genovese Family, against the
Carpenters Union and other unions; (2) to admit evidence of Olivieri’s association with the
Genovese Family; and (3) to admit evidence of Olivieri’s pre-August 2004 payment of
Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York,
Attorney for the United States of America
By: ___/s/__________________________
Lisa Zornberg
Mark Lanpher
Assistant United States Attorneys
(212) 637-2720/2399
28