Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Salerno
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 31, 1989No. Nos. 91-106, Dockets 87-1075 to 87-1078, 87-1082 to 87-1085 and 87-1208 to 87-1215Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBright, Senior Circuit Judge
I agree with much of Judge Mahoney’s excellent opinion in this case. Nevertheless, I dissent in part.
I dissent on the following issues:
1. From my review of the evidence, I do not believe that the government presents sufficient evidence to support the convictions of Corallo and Santoro on the loansharking conspiracy (predicate act 17 and count 22; see majority op. at 532).
2. Indelicate suffered convictions for participation in a RICO conspiracy (count one) and the substantive RICO offense of participating in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering (count two). The majority has set…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Anthony IndelicatoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Benjamin Ruggiero, Nicholas Santora, Anthony Rabito, and Antonio TomasuloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Superior Oil Co. v. FulmerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- United States v. PersicoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.