Merlino Trial thread

[Confederate]

From @RealMobTalk7:

Jury cannot make a decision and sent note to the judge saying they cannot come to a unamoious decision. Judge sent word back keep trying

If true, Merlino walks.

Only a mistrial not acquittal

A mistrial could give the government a chance to tighten up there case and have another a crack at Joey and possibly get him to consider a deal.

Kind Regards

John W

Very True. The Governement wants Merlino so bad they can taste it. Reminds everybody of the Gotti trials. The thing Merlino has to be afraid of is that the Government will now DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, HOOK OR CROOK to get him on at a second trial.

[UTC]

I know this sounds weird, but forgetting what the government has or hasn't proven, what do you guys think of his actual culpability on each of the charges? Not talking about whether he committed any crimes or not, but just honing in on the actual charges.

[TJ]

I think joey thought whatever the cream.thing was, it was legal..and i think.he gambled and gave some action thru rubeo..now, is that a federal gambling charge? Clock u r an attorney u know more than i do..was he involved in a healtj care.fraud.scheme? Again, i dont kmow enough about the law to say that if joey knows a doctor and.said doctor writes legit scripts for whatever this cream is and jsomeone gets a commission for introducing that person, is it illegal...i will say this..for the govt.to waste the amount of time and money on it , really obnoxious

[SonnyBlackstein]

I know this sounds weird, but forgetting what the government has or hasn't proven, what do you guys think of his actual culpability on each of the charges? Not talking about whether he committed any crimes or not, but just honing in on the actual charges.

Appears the only evidence regarding his culpability on the cream fraud is being recorded on tape saying 'we do this right, 20,000.'
Zero evidence on any charts, any companies, that he instructed/authorized/created/oversaw the fraud or was involved or received any money. Rubeo spent years with Joey and that recording is the sum evidence of Merlinos participation.

A pitiful amount of evidence IMO and if 'reasonable doubt' has any use or relevance then any jury should acquit.

Put it this way, if that was you, or some random Joe Schmo and not Merlino on trial, the jury would've acquitted immediately.

He's on trial because he's the boss of Philly and the Feds want him there, not because of reasonable evidence he committed these crimes.

[Pogo The Clown]

Don't forget they had that guy who testified he gave Merlino 100 grand from cream scam.


Pogo

[Confederate]

I know this sounds weird, but forgetting what the government has or hasn't proven, what do you guys think of his actual culpability on each of the charges? Not talking about whether he committed any crimes or not, but just honing in on the actual charges.

Appears the only evidence regarding his culpability on the cream fraud is being recorded on tape saying 'we do this right, 20,000.'
Zero evidence on any charts, any companies, that he instructed/authorized/created/oversaw the fraud or was involved or received any money. Rubeo spent years with Joey and that recording is the sum of evidence of Merlinos participation.

A pitiful amount of evidence IMO and if 'reasonable doubt' has any use or relevance then any jury should acquit.

Put it this way, if that was you, or some random Joe Schmo and not Merlino on trial, the jury would've acquitted immediately.

He's on trial because he's the boss of Philly and the Feds want him there, not because of reasonable evidence he committed these crimes.

BINGO.

[Teddy Persico]

I know this sounds weird, but forgetting what the government has or hasn't proven, what do you guys think of his actual culpability on each of the charges? Not talking about whether he committed any crimes or not, but just honing in on the actual charges.

Appears the only evidence regarding his culpability on the cream fraud is being recorded on tape saying 'we do this right, 20,000.'
Zero evidence on any charts, any companies, that he instructed/authorized/created/oversaw the fraud or was involved or received any money. Rubeo spent years with Joey and that recording is the sum of evidence of Merlinos participation.

A pitiful amount of evidence IMO and if 'reasonable doubt' has any use or relevance then any jury should acquit.

Put it this way, if that was you, or some random Joe Schmo and not Merlino on trial, the jury would've acquitted immediately.

He's on trial because he's the boss of Philly and the Feds want him there, not because of reasonable evidence he committed these crimes.

Wayne Kreisbeg testified that he gave Merlino $100k from the scheme.

[Confederate]

It also does depend on HOW MANY COUNTS is Merlino being tried. If it's 4 counts of Racketeering, Gambling, Fraud, Conspiracy then maybe the strongest count against him is Gambling and the rest are weak. Hard to tell unless you are there hearing all the testimony against him and his Jew Lawyer Jacobs refuting all of them.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Don't forget they had that guy who testified he gave Merlino 100 grand from cream scam.

That is worth note of course.

But I still dont see it changing the overall weight of evidence vs a reasonable doubt.
Do they have bank transactions to corroborate? If it was several payments, what account did this come from and are there corresponding withdrawals without explanation? What does the accounting show on Kriesburgs end?

Now Im not saying he didnt give Merlino 100k, but you NEED more than some guys word. And you need to tie the money to the accused crime. Kriesgsburg committing fraud and giving Merlino money IS NOT evidence of Merlinos complicity in that fraud. It simply means guy A committed a crime and gave guy B money. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that an accusation on its own isnt good enough. Now if Kriegsburg can demonstrate (ie show evidence of) payment to Merlino AND tie/link the payment to the fraud, then that proves beyond reasonable doubt.

Does this do this? No, it does not.

And again, take Merlino off the stand and put your wife up there, or your grandmother, and you'd want the burden of proof to be passed beyond a reasonable doubt. Forget Merlino, the onus is on the accuser to prove the charges.

Looking simply at the burden of proof, and I cant see its been done.

Remember these guys have SERIOUS motivation to link Merlino to their crimes. They MUST provide appropriate evidence according the severity of the accusation. A criminal with motivation making a self serving accusation should, on its own merit, hold minimal weight.

[Pogo The Clown]

Keep in mind we don't know the full scope of the evidence against him. We are making assumptions about it largely based on the twitter rants of a Merlino fanboy.


Pogo

[TJ]

Sonny,I feel your text is on point and i agree with you100 percent. That being said, utc question was whether anyone had an opinion on joeys culpability not whether the govt proved or didn’t prove, my answer to whether the govt did it’s job is t is same as yours, case is weak, and they wouldn’t even think of indicted most people with this evidemce

[SonnyBlackstein]

Regarding whether or not he actually did the crime?
I truly can't make a call.
One hand I can't believe basis Merlino's greedy nature that, exposed to such an opportunity he could turn it down, but on the other hand I find the evidence of his participation astoundingly minimal considering Rubeo was around him for years and the FBI watching him like hawks the whole time boils down to a snippert of tape and another convict's word.

So I can't imagine Merlino saying no, but I can't imagine Merlino saying yes and this is all the evidence.

Who the fuck knows.

[Stroccos]

Don't forget they had that guy who testified he gave Merlino 100 grand from cream scam.

That is worth note of course.

But I still dont see it changing the overall weight of evidence vs a reasonable doubt.
Do they have bank transactions to corroborate? If it was several payments, what account did this come from and are there corresponding withdrawals without explanation? What does the accounting show on Kriesburgs end?

Now Im not saying he didnt give Merlino 100k, but you NEED more than some guys word. And you need to tie the money to the accused crime. Kriesgsburg committing fraud and giving Merlino money IS NOT evidence of Merlinos complicity in that fraud. It simply means guy A committed a crime and gave guy B money. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that an accusation on its own isnt good enough. Now if Kriegsburg can demonstrate (ie show evidence of) payment to Merlino AND tie/link the payment to the fraud, then that proves beyond reasonable doubt.

Does this do this? No, it does not.

And again, take Merlino off the stand and put your wife up there, or your grandmother, and you'd want the burden of proof to be passed beyond a reasonable doubt. Forget Merlino, the onus is on the accuser to prove the charges.

Looking simply at the burden of proof, and I cant see its been done.

Remember these guys have SERIOUS motivation to link Merlino to their crimes. They MUST provide appropriate evidence according the severity of the accusation. A criminal with motivation making a self serving accusation should, on its own merit, hold minimal weight.

from merlino legal team
Willfulness

The offenses charged in the indictment require the government to prove that the defendant acted willfully with respect to certain elements of the offense. This means the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful and intended to do something that the law forbids. That is, to find that the defendant acted willfully, you must find that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a purpose to disobey or disregard the law. “Willfully” does not, however, require proof that the defendant had any evil motive or bad purpose other than the purpose to disobey or disregard the law. United States v. Kerley, 544 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir. 2008)

When the state of mind element requires awareness that the conduct is against the law, ignorance or mistake about whether the conduct violates the law would negate the state of mind element. If you find that the defendant made a mistake about or was ignorant whether his conduct violated the law, then the jury must find that the government failed to meet its burden of proving willfully beyond a reasonable doubt. The mistake or ignorance need not be reasonable, as long as it is honest or genuine. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

[Stroccos]

Keep in mind we don't know the full scope of the evidence against him. We are making assumptions about it largely based on the twitter rants of a Merlino fanboy.


Pogo

Heres a breakdown of some of merlinos defenses
Mr. Merlino’s Financial Situation

4) A February 7, 2014 conversation between CW-1, Danny Pagano, and Danny Marino during which CW-1 referred to Mr. Merlino as “desperate,” that “he can’t pay his rent,” and that CW-1 helped Mr. Merlino “quite a bit.” CW-1 hopes to stay friends with him but “it’s over.”

10) A September 30, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Mr. Merlino discussing Mr. Merlino’s plans to open a restaurant and that he could “take care of [CW-1] then.”

12) A September 30, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Mr. Merlino during which Mr. Merlino asks CW-1 for help so that Mr. Merlino can pay for an attorney.

13) A December 8, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Mr. Merlino during which CW-1 offers Mr. Merlino money because, as CW-1 states, “you’re struggling…that was for what you did for me. I appreciate this.”

Mr. Merlino’s Intention to Avoid Criminal Activity

17) A November 22, 2013 conversation between CW-1 and Carmine Gallo during which CW-1 discusses Mr. Merlino declining the opportunity to partake in the sale of stolen jewelry he “don’t want nothing to do with that.”

18) A November 22, 2013 conversation between CW-1, Carmine Gallo, and Mr. Merlino where Mr. Merlino states CW-1 could “go to jail” for using a TV device that plays newly released movies.

19) A November 26, 2013 conversation between CW-1 and Carmine Gallo during which CW-1 concedes that Mr. Merlino is “right” about criminal activity and “it’s about over.”

21) A January 6, 2014 conversation between CW-1, Mr. Merlino, and an individual referred to as Donnie during which Mr. Merlino states that they cannot engage in a certain activity because “it’s illegal” and they “can’t do nothing illegal.”

24) A March 14, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and several others during which CW-1 quotes Mr. Merlino as saying, “I will never for the rest of my life do another fuckin’ thing illegal.”

25) A March 14, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Danny Pagano during which CW-1 admits Mr. Merlino is “really trying to not do nothing” illegal and that “if they’re waiting for him to do something illegal, they’re gonna wait a long fuckin’ time because he doesn’t.”

26) A March 14, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Dick Herman during which he reiterates Mr. Merlino’s desire to stay away from criminal activity. “And like I said, I’ve been there a hundred times when people have offered to do illegal. He won’t do it.”

[Stroccos]

Gambling

30) CW-1 tells Pat Capolongo Mr. Merlino is “done with criminal life.”

37) CW-1 states he “can sell horseshit” as a settlement.

56) CW-1 states Mr. Merlino does not like to pay bookmakers.

68) A February 7, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Danny Marino during which CW-1 corrects Marino when Marino says he heard from “Anthony” that “Carmine and Joey are partners.” CW-1 responds that Anthony “knows that that’s not true.”

70) A February 7, 2014 conversation between CW-1, Danny Pagano, and Danny Marino discussing Mr. Merlino’s betting habit, with Danny Marino stating “I can’t help a guy who’s a degenerate gambler.”

100) Pat Capolongo tells CW-1 he “does not even know Joey.”

102) CW-1 instructs Camacho not to pay certain monies to Capolongo

Pain Cream

82) A March 14, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Thomas Carfaro during which Mr. Carfaro stating that he “never knew Brad and Joey are partners” in the pain cream deal and CW-1 correcting that, “they’re not.”

83) A March 14, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Dick Herman after a meeting with Mr. Merlino. CW-1 states, “I asked him straight out about him getting commission from the things. Never a dime, he said I haven’t gotten a dime from your brother-inlaw…”

86) An April 5, 2014 conversation between CW-1 and Mr. Merlino during which Mr. Merlino states he does not get involved in criminal activity, with CW-1 advising him to “stick with the [pain] cream.”

103) CW-3, speaking to another co-conspirator, touts the pain cream company and vouches for its efficacy.