by Stroccos » Mon May 11, 2020 9:25 pm
bronx wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 8:20 pm
hey Sonny hows things ,i been very busy thats why i did not answer, gotti was his dad, he ran the family and admitted so ,said he quit the mob, so a declaration by him would carry much weight..what would the issue for him "not" to try ? if the judge does not believe his testimony in that matter ,no harm not foul ..he ,like many guys who flip know things but were not present , he knew loc was against debono getting killed ,just about everyone knew it in those circles..your opinion does matter to me, im fine with you having a different opinion.you always have been open minded in my opinion.
He already tried the mere presence theory in his first appeal it didn't work, Frankie Loc is going to die in prison , I assume they offered him a plea he should of took it he would of at least had a date
http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/us_v_lo ... -10-08.htm
Locascio was convicted for crimes stemming from his role as the "underboss" of the Gambino Crime Family. The government established at trial that Locascio's function as underboss was to advise Gotti in the formulation of plans for the Gambino Family's criminal activities. His conviction was principally grounded on his presence in the Ravenite Apartment during discussions about the crimes for which he was convicted, even though he did not personally discuss many of those crimes. The government's theory was that only involved members of the conspiracy would have been allowed to attend these Ravenite Apartment meetings. Moreover, the government argued that Locascio's role [*944] as an advisor mandated that he not speak up at such meetings, unless it was to assist Gotti.
Locascio now argues that his culpability was presumed by his "mere presence" in the Ravenite Apartment and his mere exposure to conversations in which criminal conduct was discussed. Locascio contends that he was convicted not for his conduct but for his alleged position in the charged enterprise, which he argues essentially made him absolutely liable for anything that occurred. Therefore, he challenges both the sufficiency of [**56] the evidence against him and the district court's instruction that his "functional presence" in the Ravenite Apartment during discussions was sufficient to prove his participation in the various conspiracies.
In this case, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government indicates that, as the "underboss," Locascio was present to help evaluate plans presented to Gotti and give advice as needed. Gotti, Locascio, and Gravano took extensive but ultimately unsuccessful precautions to ensure that their conversations in the Ravenite Apartment, the conversations constituting the bulk of the evidence against them, were not overheard. Considering the precautions taken to ensure security, and after hearing the tapes of what was discussed in that apartment, the jury was entitled to consider whether it was likely that Locascio
[quote=bronx post_id=151173 time=1589167203 user_id=514]
hey Sonny hows things ,i been very busy thats why i did not answer, gotti was his dad, he ran the family and admitted so ,said he quit the mob, so a declaration by him would carry much weight..what would the issue for him "not" to try ? if the judge does not believe his testimony in that matter ,no harm not foul ..he ,like many guys who flip know things but were not present , he knew loc was against debono getting killed ,just about everyone knew it in those circles..your opinion does matter to me, im fine with you having a different opinion.you always have been open minded in my opinion.
[/quote]
He already tried the mere presence theory in his first appeal it didn't work, Frankie Loc is going to die in prison , I assume they offered him a plea he should of took it he would of at least had a date
http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/us_v_locascio-appeal-1993-10-08.htm
Locascio was convicted for crimes stemming from his role as the "underboss" of the Gambino Crime Family. The government established at trial that Locascio's function as underboss was to advise Gotti in the formulation of plans for the Gambino Family's criminal activities. His conviction was principally grounded on his presence in the Ravenite Apartment during discussions about the crimes for which he was convicted, even though he did not personally discuss many of those crimes. The government's theory was that only involved members of the conspiracy would have been allowed to attend these Ravenite Apartment meetings. Moreover, the government argued that Locascio's role [*944] as an advisor mandated that he not speak up at such meetings, unless it was to assist Gotti.
Locascio now argues that his culpability was presumed by his "mere presence" in the Ravenite Apartment and his mere exposure to conversations in which criminal conduct was discussed. Locascio contends that he was convicted not for his conduct but for his alleged position in the charged enterprise, which he argues essentially made him absolutely liable for anything that occurred. Therefore, he challenges both the sufficiency of [**56] the evidence against him and the district court's instruction that his "functional presence" in the Ravenite Apartment during discussions was sufficient to prove his participation in the various conspiracies.
In this case, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government indicates that, as the "underboss," Locascio was present to help evaluate plans presented to Gotti and give advice as needed. Gotti, Locascio, and Gravano took extensive but ultimately unsuccessful precautions to ensure that their conversations in the Ravenite Apartment, the conversations constituting the bulk of the evidence against them, were not overheard. Considering the precautions taken to ensure security, and after hearing the tapes of what was discussed in that apartment, the jury was entitled to consider whether it was likely that Locascio