United States v. Cueto

Facts

Venezia operated an illegal video gambling business through a pattern of racketeering activities and illegal gambling payouts. Venezia hired D, an attorney, to represent him as well as to defend the tavern owners in the event of any arrests and/or criminal charges for their participation in the illegal gambling operation. Venezia was indicted on federal racketeering charges and illegal gambling. D served as Venezia's lawyer and advisor. Venezia was convicted. Seven months later, another federal grand jury returned a second indictment naming D, Venezia, and Romanik, a local public official, and investigator who worked for D and Venezia. They were charged with, conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of justice for their conduct throughout the investigation of Venezia and his illegal gambling operation and the indictment and prosecution of the racketeering case. During a raid on the VFW where Venezia had his machines, Agent Robinson, in an attempt to gather evidence, indicated that Venezia could avoid further interruptions of his illegal gambling if he were to offer a bribe to discourage the investigation and the interference. D instructed Venezia to meet with Tom Daley, a law partner. Daley reported that Robinson had solicited a bribe. They met and Robinson taped the conversation at the FBI's request, and the tape was introduced into evidence in the racketeering case and at D's trial. The VFW was raided again. Venezia consulted D about the raids, the criminal charges, and the prosecutions, and they discussed available options and courses of action. They drafted a letter, detailing Robinson's 'corrupt' conduct and delivered it to the County State Attorney. D also filed a complaint in state court against Robinson requesting either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary and permanent injunction against alleged extortion and other vexation to prevent Robinson from interfering with the operation of Venezia's business. Robinson's requests for an attorney were denied, and the state court judge permitted D to question Robinson about the FBI's investigation (which at that point was still a covert operation) and the evidence it had obtained in the course of the investigation. The state court entered a preliminary injunction against Robinson. Despite the injunction, Robinson visited other establishments and made arrests. D then threatened to file suit against the enforcement division. D also filed a rule to show cause in state court, which described Robinson's violations of the injunction and requested the court to find him in contempt. Robinson filed a motion to remove the rule to show cause. The district court determined that Robinson had been working for the FBI under the control of a federal agent during the VFW raids, which therefore established federal jurisdiction. After removal, the district court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the complaint. D filed an appeal in this court and also filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, which also was denied. It was discovered during the investigation that D and Venezia entered into various financial transactions and business deals, some of which involved secret partnerships. Venezia reported B&H assets in order to get the credit needed to purchase many of the assets. D participated in partnerships and corporations where millions of dollars exchanged hands to finance the purchases of various real estate interests and construction costs relating to various development projects, including certain gambling operations. D continued to give Venezia legal advice. D stated publicly that he even intended to run for St. Clair County State's Attorney, and in the event, he was elected, he would prosecute Robinson. D was charged in a three-part conspiracy to defraud and that he misused his office as an attorney and unlawfully and intentionally conspired to impede, impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful function of the FBI, the grand jury, and the federal district court in connection with the investigation, indictment, and prosecution of Venezia, B & H, and the illegal gambling operation and racketeering enterprise. D was convicted and filed a timely notice of appeal.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.