Joseph Ruggiero, P. 39

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 50 PageID #: 1039
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * VS. * * LUIGI LOUIS MANOCCHIO * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CRIMINAL ACTION 11-004 DECEMBER 12, 2011 PROVIDENCE, RI
HEARD BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM E. SMITH DISTRICT JUDGE (Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Detention)
APPEARANCES : FOR THE GOVERNMENT: WILLIAM J. FERLAND, ESQ. U.S. Attorney's Office 50 Kennedy Plaza Providence, RI 02903 JOSEPH J. BALLIRO, ESQ. Balliro & Mondano 63 Atlantic Avenue 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Anne M. Clayton, RPR One Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Court Reporter:
Proceeding reported and produced by computer-aided stenography
WITNESS DAVID A. PICOZZI
I N D E X
PAGE
Direct Examination by Mr. Balliro: _____________________________
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
12 DECEMBER 2011 -- 10:00 A.M. THE COURT: Good morning. This is the matter of We're
the United States versus Luigi Louis Manocchio. here for a hearing on the Defendant's request for reconsideration of the order of detention in this matter. Let's begin by having counsel identify themselves for the record, please. MR. FERLAND: is William Ferland. attorney. Good morning, your Honor.
My name
I'm an assistant United States
I'm assisted at counsel table by Sam Nazarro
from the Organized Crime Racketeering Section and Special Agent Joe Degnan of the FBI. MR. BALLIRO: Good morning, your Honor. Joseph
Balliro, Sr., on behalf of Defendant, Mr. Manocchio. I'm assisted by local counsel, Edward Romano. MR. ROMANO: THE COURT: All right. reconsideration. Good morning, your Honor. Good morning. Mr. Romano, this is your motion for How do you wish to proceed? We have one witness, your Honor.
MR. BALLIRO:
I understand that it's at the Government's request that perhaps your Honor will consider having this testimony at side bar. THE COURT: All right. Why don't counsel come
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
on up for a moment. (Side-bar conference.) MR. FERLAND: Your Honor, I've spoken with I've inquired as
Mr. Picozzi from Pretrial Services.
to some of the limitations that relate to both the RF and GPS bracelet monitoring. There are some
significant problems, both technologically and practically and logistically, and I don't think it would be wise or in any way prudent to air those limitations out in open court. Probation has asked me
to make the request of the Court and do it at side bar. I firmly believe that it's a very good idea. I don't
think the front page of the Journal would be a good place to put people on notice as to what the limitations are of this technology. THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. Is there Doing
any way that we could just -- I don't know.
testimony at side bar is not something we typically do. It's a little logistically difficult. Is there a way to submit that information maybe separately, or have him testify just in more general terms? I don't know. MR. FERLAND: Something you can do? I think it's the devil is in the
details as it relates to this particular technology, your Honor, so a broad brush isn't going to inform the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Court as to what -THE COURT: What is it that you are trying to --
I've given you a hearing here but -MR. BALLIRO: Yes. Well, I think it's extremely
important, based upon some of the representations that were made the last time he was here with respect to what opportunities Mr. Manocchio would have to evade a GPS. And I think it's important that the Court get the
accurate information from the horse's mouth, so to speak; and I think what they have to contribute is extremely important and informative to the Court as well as important to the defense. THE COURT: Well, I'm aware of a great deal
regarding the positives and the negatives associated with the GPS monitoring system, because we approved that when it was first introduced. Probation works for
the Court so we have to know about these systems, and I'm aware of the limitations that you're talking about. I know what they are. I know how the system works. I
don't know every detail, but I know quite a bit about it. So I guess I'm not really sure that we need to have testimony on this at all. is. I mean, it is what it
Unless you can somehow convince me that there's a
system of monitoring that gives me a higher degree of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
comfort than I have, and I don't think you're going to be able to do that, frankly -MR. BALLIRO: That's what I expect to be able to
do through the testimony of this witness, because I can recall, so I'm sure you can, too, there was a lot of talk about -- and I think some of it you accepted, your Honor, having to do with Defendant perhaps having some two hours of lead time; and I believe that this witness is going to explain that that's highly unlikely that he would ever have two hours of lead time, and that's a significant factor as far as risk of flight is concerned. I mean, I'm expecting the testimony will be that they'll pretty much be in a position to jump all over him the minute that trigger, that alarm is triggered in any way, whether he goes beyond where he's supposed to go or whether he tries to take it off. THE COURT: How is that possible? It's just
totally inconsistent with everything I know about the system and the location of where you're proposing that he be in home confinement. MR. BALLIRO: Because the State Police is just, And you have the
at most, a few minutes away.
authority and they will get in contact with them immediately. And there are things like they can
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
require him to have a cell phone, also, so that they can -- if there's something wrong with the land line, they can get in touch with him and determine almost immediately whether the problem is one that they should be concerned about or not. THE COURT: him testify. Why don't we do this. Let me have
I'm just going to control the testimony,
and if Mr. Picozzi feels there's anything in the questions that he prefer not to answer for law enforcement reasons, I'll either tell him not to answer it or characterize the testimony in such a way. you should ask your questions in ways that don't attempt to elicit more -MR. BALLIRO: I've already explained to him, And
your Honor -- I don't mean to interrupt you, but I've already explained to him what I simply expect him to do on direct examination is to describe what the protocol is, and I may ask him one or two questions that I feel are relevant and more directly relevant as far as this case is concerned. I'm not putting him on to divulge
anything that shouldn't be divulged because it may affect other people and the public in some other way. MR. FERLAND: The only problem with that is that
I'm in a position where I can't bring to the Court's attention --
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
I already know everything you want I already know it. I deal
to bring to my attention.
with this probably more than you do. MR. FERLAND: You do, your Honor. I mean, I had
a nice conversation with these gentlemen on Friday, and I was a little -- my eyes opened. THE COURT: Okay. That's why I detained him.
And unless Mr. Balliro thinks he's going to pull something out of his hat that tells me this system does something I'm not aware of, and I don't think it does, so let's just let it play out a little bit. MR. FERLAND: I did want to put my objection to
the hearing on the record in advance just because, as the Court knows, I did file a memoranda in objection to the hearing itself. And just very briefly, just for
the record, I would like to preserve that if I could. THE COURT: Okay. You just did.
(End of side-bar conference.) THE COURT: witness. MR. BALLIRO: Mr. Picozzi. Mr. Balliro, you may call your
DAVID A. PICOZZI, first having been duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell
your last name for the record.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q.
THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT:
David A. Picozzi, P-I-C-O-Z-Z-I. Good morning, Mr. Picozzi. Good morning, your Honor. Go ahead, Mr. Balliro.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLIRO Mr. Picozzi, could you please describe what your
occupation is. A. I'm a United States probation officer assigned to
the supervision unit in the District of Rhode Island. Q. A. Q. How long have you had that position? In the District of Rhode Island, about four years. And do you concentrate on one particular aspect of
the Probation Office? A. Q. A. I do. And what is that? I'm the senior officer in charge of Location
Monitoring Program. Q. And by "location monitoring," we're talking about
what sometimes is referred to as the GPS? A. Q. That's one platform we use, correct. I see. Would you describe for the Court, if you
will, what the protocol is utilizing the GPS. A. Can you be a little more specific? I don't
understand your question. Q. How does it work?
Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 10 of 50 PageID #: 1048 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A. Q. A.
How does the GPS work? Yes. There's a transmitter that's placed on an GPS has three satellites. Our
offender's ankle.
agency has -- not Probation, but our monitoring agency has three satellites that are positioned around the earth. They get a satellite fix on that specific
bracelet, and they can tell us where the offender is. Q. A. Q. And is that the principal reason for it? For tracking location of offenders, correct. And with respect to the preciseness with which
that could be done, would you explain that to the Court, please. A. It's fairly precise. It's not perfect, but it's
fairly precise.
There's a lot of factors that can
interfere with that, atmospheric factors, geographical factors, technical factors. Q. And what's the protocol in the event that there's
some interference with a GPS on a particular person? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't feel It's I
comfortable answering any protocol questions.
kind of our Probation playbook, so -- open court. will if your Honor wants me to. MR. BALLIRO: rest. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE WITNESS:
I said I will answer the question
if the Judge directs me to, but I don't feel comfortable answering the question. THE COURT: I don't want the probation officer
divulging the internal protocols that they have from an enforcement point of view. information. MR. BALLIRO: May we fashion some other means by That's generally not public
which that can be both transmitted to the Court and to counsel? THE COURT: Mr. Balliro, as I tried to point out
to you before, the Probation Office works for the Court. I'm very aware of what the procedures are and
the protocols are of the probation officers, because they report to the judges of the Court. So I think I can take notice of what their protocols are because I know what they are. MR. BALLIRO: But I'm not -- I want to make an
argument that is beneficial to Mr. Manocchio concerning the means by which he can be continuously tracked through that GPS, and I can't do that. I can't make
that effective argument unless I can rely upon testimony of this witness without making what may be a misrepresentation to the Court. I'm certainly not as familiar with it as your
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor is, because I understand that they work for you. They don't work for me. THE COURT: The issue here is not whether, as I
understand what you're trying to do in this hearing, but there's never been an issue as far as I'm concerned and in my prior ruling with the effectiveness of the GPS monitoring system. It's effective to the extent The problem from my
that it is properly utilized.
point of view, and it is inherent in the nature of any monitoring system, is the technology is only good as long as the defendant is compliant with the technology; and if the technology or the devices are removed, then a Defendant can, obviously, evade the location monitoring system. And I think I said in my order from
the bench when I denied bail my concern was the bracelet could be removed and the Defendant could be on his way and could flee, and I don't know that anything has changed about that. And I don't know that this
witness can say anything that would -- because I made that ruling with the full understanding of how the system works. So there you have it. My problem, of course, your Honor,
MR. BALLIRO:
is that there was a great deal of -- whether it was a great deal or a little deal, there was a substantial amount of conversation that I assume that the Court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
took into consideration in its ruling that, for example, a person wearing the GPS would have up to two hours lead time somehow that wasn't apparent otherwise in the record of the previous hearing as to how that could be reasonably probable or even possible for him to have two hours of lead time. And it's to that point
that I'd like to have this witness testify as to what they do, and how they do it, and when they do it, and what the procedures are; because I suggest, respectfully, your Honor, from the little bit that I know about it and from the conversations one of the counsel had with this witness, that it will turn out to be highly unlikely. highly unlikely. I'm not saying impossible, but
And given what the burden of proof is
with respect to detention as far as the Government is concerned, I think that it could be a very significant factor. THE COURT: Well, are you asking about what the
protocols would be if someone were to, for example, remove the bracelet? MR. BALLIRO: Is that what you're getting at? Either remove it or interfere with
it in some way, or go beyond, for example, the area in which he has been directed not to go beyond. There are
all kinds of forms it may take that I'd like to have the witness very briefly, it's not going to take him
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
too long, I don't believe, to describe the kind of restrictions that are imposed and from that render an opinion that is consistent with what the risk of flight is. THE COURT: Well, again, I'm uncomfortable with
you getting into any details about how the Probation Office -- what their protocols are for responding to individual situations. What I know and I think the
witness would testify is that the probation officers work in tandem with other law enforcement agencies; and if an individual goes beyond his designated area, they respond to it in an appropriate measure. And if it
appears that someone has fled and cut off the device, they respond to it by contacting the law enforcement agencies, and they begin the process of attempting to locate the defendant. That's how it works. I don't
know that we need a lot more detail than that. MR. BALLIRO: Well, we probably don't. Perhaps
I could put a question or two to him, your Honor, having to do with his opinion based upon whatever his protocols are without describing them. THE COURT: Q. A. Okay. Go ahead and try that.
Do you understand? I think so, sir. I'll try to answer your question
to the best of my ability.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
Okay.
And will you answer that, please. What's the question?
THE COURT: Q.
What takes place if you get some indication from
the device or devices that you put on Mr. Manocchio, what kind of an indication, first of all, do you get? A. Depending on what specifically happens, our agency Depending on what the alert says, we put Now, whether they're
gets alerted.
into place a series of actions.
phone calls, we mobilize outside law enforcement, we mobilize ourselves, it depends case-by-case depending on what the alert we get is. Q. And from your experience, how quickly do you get
an alert if something is taking place that's contrary to whatever the restrictions have been imposed on him? A. My experience? We get alerts fairly quickly; but,
again, they're subject to things out of our control, third-party providers that transfer data like say Verizon transfers data, atmospheric issues, other outside issues, environmental issues, but fairly quickly. Q. And when you say based upon your experience fairly
quickly, can you relate that in terms of minutes? A. I wouldn't be answering your question fairly if I
gave you an exact time, no. Q. Hours?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A.
I could get it as quick as a few minutes or it I can't say. It
might take as long as a few hours. depends. Q.
Have you had instances where it's taken a few
hours to determine that there's been some problem with the technical equipment? A. Q. A. There have been isolated incidents. By "isolated," you mean how often? In my career doing this type of work, how often?
Maybe a handful of times over the course of the -- I can only speak to this district. Over the course of
the four years I've been in this district, a handful of times that something like that has happened. Q. A. Q. So approximately five times? Half a dozen times, sure. Okay. And that was in comparison to how many
occasions in which you have overseen the utilization of this equipment? A. I think, if I understand your question right, I
will say that number of times over the time I've been doing this job in this district? Q. A. Yes. Probably -- I've been involved with the location
monitoring program two, two-and-a-half years maybe, as a backup officer, primary officer.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
And how many thousands of times have you been in a
position of overseeing in which those five or so occasions took place? A. Like I said, I've been doing it for two-and-a-half
years, so, I mean, that's my day-to-day function. Q. And just approximately, can you give us some
estimate in terms of hundreds or thousands of times that -MR. FERLAND: the question. THE COURT: I think Mr. Balliro is asking you Your Honor, I object. The form of
how many -- generally speaking, in how many cases in your time in these positions have you used location monitoring. A. I've supervised in the course of my entire
probation where I supervised hundreds of people in location monitoring in this district and in another district. In this district, that's what I do every day
so I'm in that database, I'm working with those offenders daily. of years. question. Q. So would it be fair to say that it's not very So daily over the course of X number
A good number of times, if that answers your
likely that you're going to have an occasion where it's going to take hours to determine whether or not someone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
is adversely affecting the technical equipment? A. I understand your question, sir. I'm not trying
to be belligerent in any way, but I can't predict what's going to happen. Q. A. Of course not. I can't say. And I'm not asking you to. It could happen today. It might not
happen at all.
I prefer to think that our system is
very solid here, but things can happen that are out of our control like that. I can't tell you with any
definition when, where or how they could occur. Q. Would you say that it's not very likely based upon
your experience? A. I would say that it's possible. Is it probable
that it happens all the time? possible. Q. Possible.
Not probable, but it's
Now, can you tell us in a general way
what steps you take to assure that someone is being consistent with the requirements that you've put on him concerning the equipment? MR. FERLAND: THE COURT: generally. A. In a general way, as I said, we have a protocol in We use some specific supervision procedures. I object. Overruled. You can speak to it
place.
We use standard supervision procedures, in-person
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
contacts, phone calls, contacts with third parties, database review. Q. Things of that nature.
Would you have an opinion, sir, as to whether or
not on an overall basis your systems have been successful? A. Are you asking me if our location monitoring Since I've
program is successful in this district?
been here, I believe it's successful, sure. Q. And can you give us some estimate of on how many
occasions someone who was subject to the equipment that you put on them was successful in fleeing? A. Q. A. Specific to this district? Yes. I can say that I don't have any recollection of
that happening. Q. A. In how many years? I've been here going on four years. MR. BALLIRO: THE COURT: That's all I have, your Honor. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ferland, do you have any questions for the witness? MR. FERLAND: I do, your Honor, but I don't
believe that they are appropriate for an open courtroom. I believe the law enforcement privilege
would prevail, and the information that I wish to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
impart to the Court as it relates to this line of questioning I think is more appropriate either for side bar, or as the Court has indicated, I understand that the Court is familiar with a lot of the limitations on the program. THE COURT: I think I'm as familiar as anyone in
this courtroom other than the probation officers themselves with how this program works. MR. FERLAND: In that instance, your Honor, then
I don't have any questions for the witness. THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
You can step down, Mr. Picozzi. THE WITNESS: MR. BALLIRO: to put on. THE COURT: argument. MR. BALLIRO: Your Honor, it's been some nine or All right. Then you can make your Thank you, your Honor. That's all of the witnesses I have
ten months since Mr. Manocchio last appeared before this Court for the purpose of receiving bail, and your Honor at that time denied him bail. It concluded the
Government had established its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release could be imposed that would reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
before the Court on future occasions. I'm not going to belabor the Court with a repetition of everything that took place in that last hearing. I expect to rely principally on new matters
that were not presented to the Court the last time, both in facts of the law and much of that, your Honor, is contained in the memorandum that I've submitted to the Court, and the rest of it I hope to make up by argument here today. We've been successful with respect to adding additional financial security with the addition of at least two other residential properties. I believe your
Honor has got some copies of them in the materials that we furnished to the Court. We don't have all of the
appraisals in yet, and I expect that it would take no more than another day or two to get those appraisals; but I would ask the Court to consider for the moment my estimates that together with the other residences that were furnished to the Court during the last proceeding would now appear that there would be equity of at least a million-and-a-half dollars in all of those properties. The new properties that we're submitting
are residential properties that have been owned by the present owners for a very long period of time and neither one of which have any mortgages on them at all,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
your Honor. I can recall that during the last hearing there was some discussion about the fact that there did not appear to be any community support, something that I'm sure is very important to this Court when you're talking about whether or not an individual should be detained. And we've attached to our memorandum, I'm
sure that your Honor has read them or is going to read them, some 13 letters, all of which are from very respectful, law-abiding members of the community, all of which are from people that have known Mr. Manocchio in some instances for most of his life and in every instance for very long periods of time. In combination in all of those letters, your Honor will hear Mr. Manocchio described as a person who is very kind, who is very considerate, who is very respectable, who has always demonstrated how close a family man he is and described by some medical personnel as the caregiver for his parents during the course of their illness. Certainly not the kind of
person, your Honor, that would demonstrate any kind of violence. And I mention that only because I understand
that legally the offense for which he's being charged carries with it an aura of violence, but the fact of the matter is that in Mr. Manocchio you have an
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
individual who for many, many years has been under surveillance by the federal authorities, and I don't think there's ever been one instance in anything that I've seen in all the materials that I've seen that would in any way indicate to this Court that Mr. Manocchio is a violent person. being very respectful. THE COURT: Mr. Balliro, my order of detention He's described as
had nothing to do with him being a violent person or as a disrespectful person or anything like that. questioning all those things. I'm not
I've received all those
letters, and I've received other letters which I've supplied to you and to the Government expressing those sentiments. Those aren't the issues that I relied upon I don't have any real questions about
in denying bail. that.
My concerns deal with, as I expressed it in my
order, the prior history of the Defendant, the fact that he previously did flee and was absent for ten years. That's a fact that weighs very heavily, and it
cannot be ignored. Secondly, the Defendant's access, historical access to people with the means to allow him to flee the country; and there's some discussion of that in the memoranda that you've exchanged. And thirdly, the Defendant's lack of financial
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
footprint, which is unique.
That is to say, he is
someone who appears to have the ability to, if he were to disappear, not to leave a trail. Now, those are the things that I talked about at the prior detention hearing, and those are the reasons why -- as well as my feeling that as good as the location monitoring system is, it is not foolproof. And nothing short of a 24-hour guard on the Defendant is going to supply the kind of foolproof system that would, I think, be necessary. The best GPS monitoring
system just doesn't provide that level of security. So those are the reasons. So telling me about
his respectfulness and his lack of violence, I know all that and those are not the issues. MR. BALLIRO: The reason I directed your Honor's
attention to the respectfulness is because I sincerely believe that that is a factor that the Court should take into account even with respect to fleeing, not necessarily with respect to whether or not he's a violent person, but respectfulness in the sense that, as I will discuss otherwise and I'm sure that you can conclude from his whole past record, that he would be respectful of whatever conditions of release the Court would impose upon him. So in that sense, I think the fact that that's
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
his demeanor, that's the way he is, I think is a very important factor for the Court to take into consideration. He's not a rebel in the sense that he's
demonstrated that he won't abide by whatever instructions he gets from the Court. fact, to the contrary. As a matter of
Everything that he has done
with respect to the few number of occasions that he has come into contact with the Court very clearly indicate that, and I believe that that's a factor that this Court can take into consideration in determining the bottom line whether or not he would, in fact, flee if your Honor did not keep him in detention. I think that everything that you read in those letters very clearly demonstrate that he's not that kind of a person. And I think they demonstrate as
well, your Honor, that he would not be the kind of person who would be likely to disappoint those people who went through the trouble of writing a letter on his behalf any more than he would disappoint the 40-odd people that gave up their time today to come into this courtroom and demonstrate their support. He's not the
kind of a person that would disappoint all of those people by fleeing. And there are other reasons that
I'm going to be getting into in addition to that, but I just wanted to directly answer your Honor's appropriate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question as to what these other factors that also may apply to his not being a violent person, the manner in which they affect the question which your Honor has before you, is he the kind of person that is going to flee. Is it impossible for him to flee? Well, I guess Just like
I'd have to say nothing is impossible. almost anything, it may be possible.
But that's not, I don't think, the standard that the Court is controlled by here. The standard is, as
you indicated in your conclusion the last time Mr. Manocchio was here, whether or not this Court is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence, and we both understand what "preponderance" means. It's
something much, much stronger, I would suggest, than possibility. Almost anything is possible.
And I recall, your Honor, that during the last hearing, your Honor saw fit in reviewing the evidence to conclude, too, that this was a close call as to whether or not Mr. Manocchio would flee the jurisdiction if you didn't detain him. And it's to
that that I direct my argument here today, your Honor. I think it's to that that all of these people came here today to let you know that they don't feel -- they support Mr. Manocchio. They don't feel that he would
disobey whatever instructions this Court set, which can
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
be very constrictive as the Court, I'm sure, knows how to fashion those kinds of conditions. Speaking more directly to Mr. Manocchio's background concerning what kind of a risk he may be to flee, I know that during the last hearing the Government was successful to make some statements of what they characterized, and I'm going to quote them exactly, your Honor, what they characterized as fact which, in fact, were not fact at all. unrebutted on that occasion. The Government was successful, for example, in citing a whole host of cases in which people had flown and were caught and brought back. And I think your And it went
Honor, too, mentioned the Bulger case as an example. And I understand those examples. But what I also
understand, your Honor, is that you can distinguish Mr. Manocchio from every single one of those cases. And you can distinguish them, if for no other reason, on the basis that he voluntarily came back and surrendered himself unlike all of those other instances. Those people didn't voluntarily come back
and face the kind of serious charges that Mr. Manocchio knew that he was going to be facing when he came back. I understand he had been gone for a very lengthy period of time. I understand, too, and I think your Honor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
recognized it during the course of the last hearing, that that was over 40 years ago. And not too many of
us are the same person that we were 40 years ago, especially when you're in your mid-80's as Mr. Manocchio is at the present time. But in addition to that, the Government said, and I'm reading now from page 15 of the record of the past hearing, that it was, quote, "Only by way of a negotiated resolution to his surrender that he showed up." Well, I think the Government said that, your Honor, because they understood that they had a problem. They understood that in Mr. Manocchio they had a very unusual defendant in the sense that he voluntarily came back. Nobody had to bring him back. And he
voluntarily came back, even though he was not under the imprimatur of conditions set by a court. happened in Mr. Manocchio's case. So that in that sense, at least, he was not disobeying any edict put on him by a court any more than I would think he would do that today if your -for whatever conditions your Honor put on him. Now, there wasn't and isn't a shred of evidence, even though it was given as a fact by the Government, that Mr. Manocchio had negotiated a resolution to his That never
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
surrendering.
I suggest to you that Mr. Manocchio came
back on that occasion for the same reason that he wants not to be detained now. He came back because, as you
can very readily see from all of those letters that have been submitted to you, because he's a good family man and, for whatever the reasons, he had to see his family. And he would like to see his family now. And
he had to see his family in spite of the fact that those were extremely serious charges that he was voluntarily surrendering himself for; and he had no way of knowing what the future was going to hold for him at that point in time, and yet he came back. The Government got by that alleged statement of fact, which was make-believe, and went on to say that -- and I'm quoting now, again from page 15, that, quote, "It was a tactical decision on the part of the Defendant to surrender at that point in time because the case for the State at that point had apparently become significantly weaker." Not a shred of evidence to support that alleged fact. There was no reason for Mr. Manocchio to feel at
that time that the case was any weaker than it had ever been, and I think subsequent events prove that beyond any doubt. So we don't have to speculate as far as
that is concerned, because it was another four years or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
so before Mr. Manocchio was put to trial. importantly, he was convicted.
And more
He was convicted.
Now, I understand that at some point in time later on the Supreme Court here in Rhode Island reversed that conviction; but are we to believe the suggestion put by the Government that, number one, he knew when apparently they didn't know at that time, state officials, that their case was any weaker. Number two, I don't know how much weaker it could have been if he was convicted and sentenced and spent over two years in jail as a result of his conviction before it was reversed by the Supreme Court. That's all I'm saying to your Honor is that those went unrebutted last time. I don't know how much your Honor might personally have known about those cases, but I don't think that that is necessarily the point. The fact of
the matter is that your Honor ought not to accept without any evidence at all any suggestion by the Government that when Mr. Manocchio surrendered himself some 40 years ago to that very, very serious offense, that he did so because he had some inside knowledge, so to speak, or everything was going to be copacetic, that everything was just going to be wonderful and that's why he came back and surrendered himself. I suggest
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that there's no evidence to support that proposition and that your Honor should discount that argument completely. Mr. Manocchio is now -THE COURT: away from you. MR. BALLIRO: THE COURT: MR. BALLIRO: years. I'm sorry. That's all right. Mr. Manocchio is now well over 84 Again, your mike seems to be getting
The Government has made the point, at least in
its last hearing, that he's an exceptional 84-and-a-half-year-old person because they have some pictures of him taken recently -- well, I don't know what "recently" is, maybe two or three years, where he was working in the garden. I had a 90-year-old
grandmother that worked in the garden because she liked being out in the open air and getting whatever little exercise she could. She couldn't run ten feet. And I
would respectfully suggest that even Mr. Manocchio, as of this day, would have trouble running five feet in spite of the good condition that they claim he is in. Your Honor has a letter from one of his doctors, Dr. Izzi, I believe, who has described an arthritis condition, which is pretty well -- the kind of condition that's pretty well-known to almost anybody
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that's in their mid-80's that causes a swelling above his joints, but more importantly speaks in terms of it affecting his being ambulatory. So I don't think he can be running very fast, your Honor, given the conditions that he's going to be put under by the Court, if, in fact, you did not detain him. Now, I don't know how much significance, although I think it should be very much, that your Honor should attach to the fact that perhaps, and this is just a guesstimate on my behalf, that this is the first time in history that a defendant is arrested at an airport for an offense that took place, allegedly, in an area that he's just about to get on the airplane to go to. And of course, that was the situation as far He was just about to
as Mr. Manocchio was concerned.
get on the airplane to come to Rhode Island; and he was coming to Rhode Island, certainly, your Honor, knowing that there was always the prospect that he would be arrested. And if you give all -- if you give credit to
all of the factors that the Government pointed to as to his ability to flee and to go around the world almost at will and that he had friends everywhere that would take care of him, apparently that didn't occur to Mr. Manocchio when all of a sudden he was arrested
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
there at the airport.
Even knowing that he was a
target and having known that for at least two years, and I say at least two years because it's probably even longer than that, and he knew that even though his attorney at the time had been in communication with the U.S. Attorney's Office here about the very charges that were -- that he's before the Court here now on and at some time having to go to trial on. I suggest to your Honor that today you have an entirely different situation than you had ten months ago for all of the reasons that I've given the Court, but for one additional reason that I think in Mr. Manocchio's case is very valid. Mr. Manocchio is
almost ten months older than he was the last time he was here, and he spent the last ten months in what I describe almost as a dungeon as opposed to a correctional institution here at Wyatt. But the fact
of the matter is that for a person in their mid-80's to spend ten months in an institution is an entirely different situation than some youngster being there. His life potential is, of course, obviously, much less in his mid-80's than it would have been when he was much younger. I don't think, your Honor, that based upon all of the materials that you had, to the over-pouring of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
support here in this courtroom today that this Court should have realistically any concern about Mr. Manocchio disobeying any directions or any conditions that it would impose. And I suggest,
respectfully, that conditions can be imposed that will assure the Court that he'll appear at whatever time the Court directs him to. THE COURT: Mr. Ferland? MR. FERLAND: THE COURT: MR. FERLAND: Good morning, your Honor. Good morning. Your Honor, 18 U.S. Code Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Balliro.
3142(f)(2)(B) provides that a hearing such as this may be reopened if you find that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. The statute requires them to show that there is new evidence that has come to their attention that is material, has a material bearing on your initial decision in this case. Your Honor, there are a plethora of cases that have to do with the New England La Cosa Nostra and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
discuss in great detail -- the First Circuit particularly, in great detail the nature of La Cosa Nostra. And just for the record, just in passing, some
of those cases include the United States versus Angiulo , 847 Fed 2d at 956; the United versus Barone , 114 Fed 3d at 1284; the United States versus Carrozza , 4 Fed 3d, 70; and the United States versus Patriarca , 948 Fed 2nd, 789. The message from each and every one of those cases, your Honor, as the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals said in U.S. versus Marino , is that organized crime and violence are fundamentally connected, and historically there has been no shortage of examples demonstrating the inherent connection. Your Honor, we can't lose sight of what the Defendant is charged with, the nature of the indictment. A jury has found probable cause to believe
that at one point in time during the course of the conspiracy he was the boss of the New England La Cosa Nostra, a violent criminal organization. And it's with
this backdrop that the Court considered whether or not to detain Mr. Manocchio. The Court's written decision of March 28th, 2011, was well-thought out. It was well-reasoned. The Court It
was well-grounded on both law and facts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
agreed, by the way, with the magistrate judge's finding that the evidence that the Government had as it related to the indictment was substantial. The fact of the
matter is, your Honor, that that evidence has only improved. The Government's case has gotten
significantly stronger since this Court rendered its decision in March of 2011. A superseding indictment
has been returned that has added additional defendants and played out for the Court in a so-called speaking indictment the nature of the evidence that supports that superseding indictment. The decision to detain Mr. Manocchio was sound. It was legally justified. Now, the Defendant has offered to the Court a number of letters of support from the community. First, as I pointed out in my legal memoranda, your Honor, there were no shortage of references to community support during the initial hearing. the Court may recall that counsel brought this information to the Court's attention but indicated that there were individuals who were reticent to come before the Court for fear of embarrassment in supporting Mr. Manocchio. A conscious decision was made on the In fact,
part of counsel at the earlier proceeding not to present this information.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
In any event, letters attesting to the character of the Defendant is not new information under the case law. There are a number of cases that are directly on
point that speak to this, and I brought those cases to the Court's attention, the United States versus Hare , 83 Fed 2d, 796; the United States versus Dillon , 938 Federal 2d, 412; and the United States versus Standford , 349 Federal Appendix at 979. Each of those
cases stand for the proposition that letters of support do not constitute new material evidence as it relates to the decision to detain the Defendant. Your Honor, one of the things that you brought out earlier in your discussion with counsel, Mr. Balliro, were the factors that you considered sort of as the underpinnings of your decision to detain the Defendant, and you indicated that one of the things that you were concerned about was the Defendant's access to people with means and that he was unlikely to leave a so-called financial footprint. That factor is significant even as it relates to the letters of support that you've received. One of
the letters of support that you received was a rather lengthy letter, nine pages, from an attorney here in Rhode Island, and he speaks in favor of the Defendant and his release, but of interesting note that, I think,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
perhaps escapes the significance of the author, "Prior to this year, I saw Mr. Manocchio, if I recall correctly, on a Southwest flight from Florida to Rhode Island. I was returning from South Florida with my
father to wrap up a few things relative to a home that I had sold in Rhode Island back in mid-2007." He bumps into Mr. Manocchio on a plane. underscores exactly the point the Government is attempting to make and has been attempting to make throughout this detention proceeding. The Defendant This
has significant access to assets that are clearly hidden. Now, I don't know if the Court wants me to
proceed by way of proffer or testimony, but let's for sake of expediency proceed on proffer, and if the Court would rather I call a witness I'm prepared to do that. Mr. Manocchio's sole source of support is $985 pension that he receives from the Veterans Administration. Yet, the fact that he has only $985 a month from the Veterans Administration and absolutely no bank accounts of any kind that can be found, zero responses on any credit reports, he's able to repeatedly fly around the country, such as his jaunt to Florida where he bumped into his supporter, the local attorney. Now, these pieces of information were brought to the Court's attention, this use of credit cards and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
lines of credit of other individuals at the initial hearing. Since that time, your Honor, additional
evidence supporting the Government's position of unexplained wealth has come to the attention of the Government. By way of example, if I could, on July 6th
of this year, a cooperating witness met with an individual who the Government contends is a made member of the La Cosa Nostra, Joseph Ruggiero. The
cooperating witness was wearing a recording. May I? THE COURT: Mr. Balliro? MR. FERLAND: He has a copy in discovery, your Yes. Did you supply this to
Honor, but I'll give him another copy today. THE COURT: MR. BALLIRO: you for a moment. difficulty hearing. THE COURT: MR. FERLAND: We'll get him some earphones. Your Honor, if I may, I would Thank you. If I may, your Honor, interrupt
Mr. Manocchio tells me he's having
direct the Court's attention to page three of this transcript in which the Government's cooperator met with Ruggiero. Mr. Ruggiero brings to the attention of He used my credit card, you Now, listen to
the cooperator, (Reading:) understand? Yeah.
It was, uh, 4500.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
this.
Now they're smart, these people.
Then when he
come to Florida five or six times, he used my card. Now, I played golf for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Yeah. man. I met this lawyer, his friend, Terry Biafore. I don't think he's a lawyer, just an insurance Right. He don't want to go see him either
because they come and talk to him, because he used to do the same thing when he went skiing. the credit cards to go away. yours? No. His, not mine. He used, uh,
So now this guy's got -His. His. So he's got
over 30 grand in credit cards. The guy? Yeah, yeah.
That's tax evasion.
Oh, Louie, oh, the guy used to
use his own credit cards or Louie used to use them. Louie. a favor? Louie used it like you say. I don't got a credit card. Yeah. Joe, can you do me Can you buy a
ticket under my name?
And then we go to page 21, conversation comes up again. Same topic. Starting at the top of page 21,
(Reading:)
With them, with them things down in The first phase he made 90 million.
Florida, yeah. Yeah. got.
Zammiello, he don't know how much money he's You know, he must have given him a condo. He got a condo. He
got, he got a condo.
Frankie must
have -- of course he did. him a condo.
Zammiello must have given
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Ruggiero says:
Of course. Go on it.
He used to fly him Yeah. See if
on his plane everywhere.
Louis went on my, uh, American Express, he gave me the cash. I'm not going to lie to you, but I'm not going
to tell the Feds that or tell my F-ing lawyer to tell the Feds that. Right. Now I got to take the F-ing You follow what I'm
heat because I got to stand up. saying? Right.
Clear evidence that the Defendant has cash available to him for extensive travel, and he hides that by using other individuals' cards. The individual
that was referenced in that conversation, Biafore, was interviewed by the FBI. During the course of that FBI
interview with Agent Degnan, Biafore conceded he regularly let Manocchio use his card and would receive cash from Manocchio for using that card. Now, one of the things that has happened in this case that the defense contends is new evidence, new material considerations that the Court should look to in deciding to release the Defendant, they said -defense has said sureties, we have new sureties that the Court should consider. I pressed -- at a recent
conference, I pressed counsel, what properties are we talking about? properties? What is the equity that lies on these
How can we be assured that there is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
legitimate ownership interest?
In response to that,
counsel sent PDF files of the particular properties in question. I had Agent Degnan go out and investigate
these properties. One property at 369A Snake Hill Road is owned by a woman last name of Livingston. Does she know the Defendant? Defendant? No. No. She was interviewed. Has she ever met the
She's asked to post this property by There's no connection at all What's to
the Defendant's brother.
between this woman and the Defendant.
prevent the Defendant from walking away from this property of a complete stranger? Secondly, and more importantly, a piece of property was offered up claiming that this property, a commercial property, had a certain value. This is an
Atwells Avenue property, and I'm sure the Court has a copy of the assessor's database that counsel provided. 434 Atwells Avenue. piece of property. Did an inquiry on that
The Court will recall, and if you'd
like I can provide a copy to your Honor, that the property was purportedly owned by Lantern Holding, LLC. Well, agents did some digging and the owner/principal of Lantern Properties is a person by the name of David Corsetti, a man through scores of surveillances we've seen with Mr. Manocchio. They went and interviewed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mr. Corsetti, and he said, I don't own that property anymore. That property was sold in March to a real
estate company and the individual's name who owns that real estate company is Frank Paolino. Agents went and spoke to Mr. Paolino. He
doesn't know Mr. Manocchio and never at any time did he agree that his real estate could be posted for Mr. Manocchio. That should cause the Court great
concern and pause when representations are being made as to what property is going to be posted in favor of this Defendant when here we have a situation where the guy who owns the property doesn't know the Defendant and certainly has never made any representation that he posted the property. That's a great concern.
Your Honor, I'm not going to go into the particulars as to why the bracelet would be inappropriate in this instance. The Court has assured
the Government that it is aware of the practical realities of GPS technology, and I would simply suggest to the Court that it would be inappropriate in this particular case. May I have just one moment, please? THE COURT: (Pause.) MR. FERLAND: I'd simply urge the Court to stand Yes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
by its initial ruling, indicate that nothing has changed here, your Honor, except the fact that the Government's case has gotten stronger, and I would ask you to continue to detain the Defendant until trial. Thank you. THE COURT: Can you just put on the record,
because I can't remember precisely, I know from our conference we've had discussions about it, but I know you've done some preliminary work with respect to the advisory guideline range in this case in the event that the Defendant were convicted. to have that in the record. MR. FERLAND: I would agree with the Court, I think it's important
because I think it creates a tremendous incentive on the part of the Defendant to flee. If the Defendant were not to accept responsibility and were to proceed to trial, his offense level is a 29. we calculated to be a 3. His criminal history category That would put him in a
sentencing range of 108 to 135 months in prison. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: MR. BALLIRO: Honor? THE COURT: Certainly, Mr. Balliro. Thank you. Can I just respond briefly, your
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know --
MR. BALLIRO:
First of all, directing your
Honor's attention to the superseding indictment, I suggest respectfully from my reading of it, it doesn't add any weight to Mr. Manocchio's case and serves only the purpose of, if he's going to be detained, his in all likelihood staying in jail for perhaps another six months or a year because of how long it's going to be to get ready for the superseding indictment. I don't profess to know exactly when your Honor is going to insist that the case be tried, if it's going to trial, but -THE COURT: Well, I've been trying as you
MR. BALLIRO:
I know you have, and that's why
I'm directing your Honor's attention to at least that facet of it. With respect to Mr. Manocchio knowing people of means, Mr. Manocchio is a single person, and when he was able to, and I think certainly the Government is going to agree, that he was the kind of individual who instead of spending his time in wasteful areas, he loved outdoor sports physically himself. And he didn't
have enough money to go all of these places, places to ski, for example. But, fortunately, he had friends
that were willing to subsidize him, so to speak, as far
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
as those things were concerned. You know, the fact that people have money, I'm not suggesting that he has any great deal of money, but billionaires are put on bail who could go out and buy countries to live in themselves if they wanted to and yet show up for trial when they're supposed to. And I think the one thing that the Government has consistently ignored is the presumption of innocence because that's what this Defendant has, like every other defendant has that comes before the Court. The Government can say they have a strong case, but, once again, that's them just saying that. They've
got, as your Honor is no doubt very aware, they've got a very, very difficult burden of proof when they go to trial, and I think it's very presumptuous for anyone to suggest to any court that their case is either very, very strong or very, very weak. I don't see their case
as being a very, very strong case, especially with respect to who it appears that they're going to be relying on for whatever evidence they have. With all of the surveillances, with all of the wiretaps, and there have been many, and hundreds if not thousands of recordings made, not one with Mr. Manocchio on them. That's not an overwhelming case Thank you.
as far as I see it, your Honor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Thank you, Mr. Balliro.
Thank you, Counsel, very much for your arguments. And it's generally my practice to try to
give parties the opportunity to air their views fully; but in this case, I don't see any reason to change my original order regarding detention. The statute calls for reconsideration in the event that -- as Mr. Ferland points out, in the event that there's really new information that the Court was unaware of or changes the calculus; and I don't see any new information here that would cause me to change my assessment of the situation, and I laid all of that out in my written order ordering detention. It is true
that I said in that order that it was a close case and reasonable minds could view the evidence in different ways, and that was evidenced by the fact that Judge Martin had recommended not detaining the Defendant. viewed the evidence somewhat differently than Judge Martin did, and I respect his views, and this is just one of those cases where the Judge has to make the best call he can based on the information that is before me. But I made the decision I made previously with a full understanding of the capabilities and the limitations of GPS location monitoring. It's a very I
good and very effective system, but it is not
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
foolproof; and if one has the desire to evade it, I think proper planning and effort is possible to get a jump on law enforcement that is substantial. And as I
said before, the Defendant, I believe, has means that we don't know about that aren't apparent, the evidence would indicate that. And he has a history --
Mr. Balliro correctly points out he returned, but there is a history of fleeing. And I think the potential
sentence here is substantial and that does create an incentive. So for all the reasons that I laid out in my original order, I'm going to deny the motion for reconsideration because I don't see anything new that should cause me to change that determination. Now, as counsel know, I've been pressing to get this matter to trial. information. It's a voluminous amount of
Defense counsel for the various We've
Defendants have been requesting additional time. set some schedules up.
It's my hope that we will be
moving this matter forward, all of the matters forward to trial as quickly as possible. goal that I have. So that remains a
I know all counsel are now working
diligently toward getting the case ready for trial. So unless there's anything -I'm sorry?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor?
MR. BALLIRO: your Honor.
He didn't mean to interrupt you,
He thought you were through speaking. Unless there's anything further,
THE COURT:
then we're going to be in recess. MR. BALLIRO: May we have just one moment, your
THE COURT: (Pause.) MR. BALLIRO: THE COURT:
Yes, you may.
Sorry, your Honor. Okay.
Thank you.
We'll be in recess.
(Court concluded at 11:20 a.m.)
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Anne M. Clayton, RPR, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes in the above-entitled case.
/s/ Anne M. Clayton ______________________________________ Anne M. Clayton, RPR
January 26th, 2012 ________________________________________ Date

Joseph Ruggiero, P. 39

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joseph Ruggiero, P. 39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 50 PageID #: 1039

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * VS. * * LUIGI LOUIS MANOCCHIO * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CRIMINAL ACTION 11-004 DECEMBER 12, 2011 PROVIDENCE, RI

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Proceeding reported and produced by computer-aided stenography

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 2 of 50 PageID #: 1040

WITNESS DAVID A. PICOZZI

Direct Examination by Mr. Balliro: _____________________________

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 50 PageID #: 1041

I'm an assistant United States

I'm assisted at counsel table by Sam Nazarro

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 4 of 50 PageID #: 1042

Mr. Picozzi from Pretrial Services.

any way that we could just -- I don't know.

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 5 of 50 PageID #: 1043

Court as to what -THE COURT: What is it that you are trying to --

Unless you can somehow convince me that there's a

system of monitoring that gives me a higher degree of

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 6 of 50 PageID #: 1044

at most, a few minutes away.

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 7 of 50 PageID #: 1045

I'm just going to control the testimony,

I'm in a position where I can't bring to the Court's attention --

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 8 of 50 PageID #: 1046

I already know everything you want I already know it. I deal

your last name for the record.

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 9 of 50 PageID #: 1047

THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

occupation is. A. I'm a United States probation officer assigned to

Monitoring Program. Q. And by "location monitoring," we're talking about

understand your question. Q. How does it work?

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 10 of 50 PageID #: 1048 10

There's a lot of factors that can

comfortable answering any protocol questions.

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 11 of 50 PageID #: 1049 11

I said I will answer the question

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 12 of 50 PageID #: 1050 12

that it is properly utilized.

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 13 of 50 PageID #: 1051 13

And given what the burden of proof is

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 14 of 50 PageID #: 1052 14

to the best of my ability.

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 15 of 50 PageID #: 1053 15

And will you answer that, please. What's the question?

What takes place if you get some indication from

into place a series of actions.

gave you an exact time, no. Q. Hours?

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 16 of 50 PageID #: 1054 16

I could get it as quick as a few minutes or it I can't say. It

might take as long as a few hours. depends. Q.

Have you had instances where it's taken a few

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 17 of 50 PageID #: 1055 17

And how many thousands of times have you been in a

A good number of times, if that answers your

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 18 of 50 PageID #: 1056 18

I prefer to think that our system is

your experience? A. I would say that it's possible. Is it probable

that it happens all the time? possible. Q. Possible.

Not probable, but it's

Now, can you tell us in a general way

We use standard supervision procedures, in-person

Case 1:11-cr-00004-S-PAS Document 163 Filed 02/06/12 Page 19 of 50 PageID #: 1057 19

Would you have an opinion, sir, as to whether or