The Chicago Outfit (discussion)

[Pete]

What's Mickey D's expected sentence?

He's not going to get 40yrs.

I'd guess two ten your sentences concurrent he will do 8 or so I think carparelli is gonna get 7 or something I couldn't see Mickey getting much more plus no one actually got hurt

[Chicago]

From watching my Father in Court defending people in Criminal cases in the past, once the Prosecutor links the Defendant to Outfit guys, ( even if they are inactive like Pete DiFronzo ), It's all over for the Defendant, especially in front of a Jury. Mickey D's lawyer made a bad mistake by admitting into evidence the fishing boat picture with Pete DiFronzo. That now becomes ( in the mind of the Jury ) the huge Elephant standing in the middle of the room that won't go away even though DiFronzo had nothing to do with it.
The Prosecution ( in my opinion ) really did not prove Davis was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's what happens when you roll the dice with a Jury because they are usually not very bright people.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Prove he was guilty or not, let's not pretend this guy is a saint. Or innocent.

[Ivan]

Prove he was guilty or not, let's not pretend this guy is a saint. Or innocent.

I don't think anyone was pretending he was a saint or innocent. They were talking about reasonable doubt and prejudicing the jury with Outfit stuff.

[Wiseguy]

Keep in mind Wiseguy that what the Feds say isn't "gospel." State Police and Local police also have first hand knowledge of what's going on and you could bet that the facts get somewhat distorted with three major sources who typically fail to communicate "all intelligence." Keep in mind you're talking about a federal law enforcement agency that has had more high ranking officials lie, cheat and allow informants to commit atrocities while out on the street. Scott also has street sources, local cops, PI's, and lawyers as sources. While the govn't is certainly winning the war on OC, they are certainly shitting the bed in many more serious matters as terrorism, financial stability, international drug smuggling to name a few. My point is the Feds have public relations specialists who aren't giving us anymore detail than the broad strokes. My two cents.

I've never claimed the feds are infallible. But they are far and away the most informed and consistent source of info on the mob. Even the most "hooked in" poster on these forums would know very little without their info, either directly through indictments or indirectly through authors and reporters. And for a guy with so many sources, you would think Scott would get things right more often. My two cents.

[Antiliar]

, but that's what happens when you roll the dice with a Jury because they are usually not very bright people.

Let's not diss all juries. As someone who once sat on a jury I obviously disagree with that generalization. In the jury I was on, it consisted of people from all walks of life with one qualification: they were all registered voters. So that rules out a sizable chunk of the population right there. Some jurors have biases and prejudices, just like the posters here do. Then there's also a large segment that wants to just get it over with so they can go home and get back to their normal lives. But jurors as a whole are generally as bright as the rest of the population, with some more bright than others, and some less so.

[Chicago]

You have a much higher opinion of the general population than I do. Concerning the Law and what happens in a Courtroom, the average Juror is not too bright. You were in the minority my friend. Also, you were only 1 out of 12 Jurors. That's the problem. It would be extremely rare to have 12 Jurors in A Criminal Case who understand the difference between a preponderance of Evidence versus Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt among many other law issues.
A Defendant generally has a much better chance with a Bench Trial rather than a trial by Jury in front of 12 Jurors, 10 of whom don't know anything about what to really consider in rendering a verdict based upon the evidence presented.

[Chicago]

Continuation...
A Defendant has a better chance with a Bench Trial when the Case is something that is publicly scorned such as Domestic Violence, Sex offense etc.
In addition, it is less costly to the Defendant.

[123JoeSchmo]

Reminds me of that Archie Bunker quote where he said that people who should be on juries are people who are trained to be on juries. Meathead said that was crazy and the classic reply was this:

"Well it ain't half as crazy as what you got now. You gotta judge who spends half his life in school, then he goes on to be a lawyer then he's a lower judge, upper judge, works himself up to a big murder trial. Does he get to decide who's innocent or guilty? Nah no. The decision is made by 5 salesmen, 3 bank tellers, a couple of plumbers, a seamstress and a dingbat"

[Antiliar]

You have a much higher opinion of the general population than I do. Concerning the Law and what happens in a Courtroom, the average Juror is not too bright. You were in the minority my friend. Also, you were only 1 out of 12 Jurors. That's the problem. It would be extremely rare to have 12 Jurors in A Criminal Case who understand the difference between a preponderance of Evidence versus Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt among many other law issues.
A Defendant generally has a much better chance with a Bench Trial rather than a trial by Jury in front of 12 Jurors, 10 of whom don't know anything about what to really consider in rendering a verdict based upon the evidence presented.

I didn't write that the general population is particularly bright, just that jurors are about equal. As for the defendant's success, the jury does have certain benefits, like playing on people's emotions, especially if the judge is weak. Judges more often than not side with the police too, and while you may expect that they're fair, consider our topic of the Chicago Outfit. How many judges were in the pockets of organized crime? While corrupt judges may get guilty defendants off, if we're concerned about justice there's no guarantee either way.

[Chicago]

The Judges in the pockets of Organized Crime was always way exaggerated. Sure, there were a select few in the past but a small percentage of all Judges.
In 2015, the Judges in the pockets of the remainder of the Outfit, would be zero or close to zero in the same way that street bookmaking is next to zero as described by Mike Magnafichi. It would be easier to corrupt a Juror since there are 12 of them and all you need is one for a hung Jury.
Mickey Davis, the guy I was talking about, should have either made a deal with the Prosecution and pled guilty OR had a Bench trial. Defendants like Mickey Davis have a better chance with a Judge than a Jury who will NEVER get past the picture of him fishing with Pete DiFronzo and being his life long acquaintance. That's the point. How many Judges 40 years ago were in the pocket of the Outfit is irrelevant to Mickey Davis in 2015.

[Antiliar]

I was just giving an historic example to show that judges aren't perfect either. There have been and are corrupt ones, biased ones and lazy ones. Sure Mickey D's lawyer shouldn't have agreed to the photo and maybe he would have been better off if he'd have a jury trial, or even better, he shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.

[Jeff]

You have a much higher opinion of the general population than I do. Concerning the Law and what happens in a Courtroom, the average Juror is not too bright. You were in the minority my friend. Also, you were only 1 out of 12 Jurors. That's the problem. It would be extremely rare to have 12 Jurors in A Criminal Case who understand the difference between a preponderance of Evidence versus Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt among many other law issues.
A Defendant generally has a much better chance with a Bench Trial rather than a trial by Jury in front of 12 Jurors, 10 of whom don't know anything about what to really consider in rendering a verdict based upon the evidence presented.

That really depends on the county or individual courtroom. You have to remember that judges 'answer' to the people. Juries do not. I could show you courtrooms where the defendant pretty much can't win.

[Jeff]

I'm referring to state court of course.

[Chopper]

The Judges in the pockets of Organized Crime was always way exaggerated. Sure, there were a select few in the past but a small percentage of all Judges.
In 2015, the Judges in the pockets of the remainder of the Outfit, would be zero or close to zero in the same way that street bookmaking is next to zero as described by Mike Magnafichi. It would be easier to corrupt a Juror since there are 12 of them and all you need is one for a hung Jury.
Mickey Davis, the guy I was talking about, should have either made a deal with the Prosecution and pled guilty OR had a Bench trial. Defendants like Mickey Davis have a better chance with a Judge than a Jury who will NEVER get past the picture of him fishing with Pete DiFronzo and being his life long acquaintance. That's the point. How many Judges 40 years ago were in the pocket of the Outfit is irrelevant to Mickey Davis in 2015.

Case closed! Chuckie English told me when he let it be al over me! Whoo ho Chicago I just made 10 bucks singing in front of Ceasars! Nobody gambles in Chicago anymore case closed!