Editor’s note: There is a growing movement in this country that inveigles everyone to not publish, listen, or consider anything that displeases them or that they disagree with. In fact, this movement not only seeks to ban the publication of what they do not like, but wishes to punish or cancel those who write it. To some, this seems to be a perfidious idea that will in time extinguish all voices but the loudest, the most powerful, and destructive — and they argue against this myopic view by asking us to have the patience to tolerate and the strength to debate unpleasant, repugnant, oppositional views, for the sake of keeping a society that encourages free speech. For from out of free speech new ideas will be birthed, sometimes from fragments of the ideas from the lips of our opponents, the very voices with whom we most fervently disagree and would otherwise cancel.
Then there are others who disagree. In these times, they say, it is better to not ask any questions. It’s always best to do what the mob says. And, as in these times, since there are two mobs, it is best to shout with the largest. That said, a warning is given: Do not read the following if you are incited to anger by the thought of reading something you disagree with, and rather than consider it for granules of truth possibly contained within it, you seek to cancel the writer, or anyone else. For my part, I found some truth in this story, and some things I disagree with. Do not read it if you are easily offended or know all. If not, why not consider the story carefully? It is a powerful commentary on our justice system. Debate it if you disagree. That is what the comments section is for.
Alleged Mobster’s Breakdown in Court Signals Precedent for Carving Out Exception to Confrontation Clause in Mafia Cases
By Suneel Chakravorty
DAYTON, OHIO — Carmine “Tuffy” Gallo, who prosecutors say was a member of the Ohio-based criminal organization La Cosa Nostra, aka the Carozzoni Crime Family, began sobbing during cross examination yesterday inside The Rhonda M. Rice Federal Courthouse in Dayton OH., and was excused from further questioning.
Gallo is the only remaining cooperating witness in the federal trial of Michael “The Archangel” Carozzoni, accused of racketeering, conspiracy, illegal gambling, bribery, loansharking, and extortion, arising from a 11-count indictment presented by the US Attorney for the Western District of Cincinnati.
US Circuit Court Judge Mary J. Andrews halted cross examination after Gallo began to weep uncontrollably and seemed unable to answer in conformity with his plea bargain, which Judge Andrews had approved, after being pressed by Carozzoni’s attorney, Angela B. Cutler.
The prominent Cleveland criminal defense attorney peppered the alleged mafia “made man’ with a barrage of questions, challenging him on aspects of his prior testimony.
Gallo had testified for three days under direct examination by Assistant US Attorney Janet Lynn Morton, describing in excruciating detail his oftentimes painful relationship with Carozzoni, whom he called “Godfather” and who was, he said, the “head of the family.”
Michael Carozonni, a ruthless mob boss or mild-mannered leader of an Italian social club?
During his testimony, Gallo offered jurors a vivid description of the secretive underworld of the Ohio mafia, where members made a lifetime vow of secrecy, called the Code of Silence or “Omerta”, and agreed to obey orders based on a hierarchical structure, which included a Boss, an Underboss and Captains, who oversee “crews” consisting of “soldiers” and “associates.”
Four months earlier, Gallo pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering and one count of loansharking and agreed to testify pursuant to a cooperation agreement by which he admitted he intended to deceive victims of Italian descent into joining La Cosa Nostra and coercing borrowers of sums of money lent by his superiors to repay or face dire consequences.
As part of his plea deal, Gallo admitted he was an Underboss, along with the notorious Angelo Attilio “Mack the Knife” Maceo.
Gallo explained to the jury that “soldiers” are members of the crime family who have been formally initiated through a ritual called a “making ceremony,” during which they swear allegiance to La Cosa Nostra [LCN] above all else, take a vow of secrecy about the organization and agree to commit crime on behalf of the LCN.
After this ceremony, these men, who must be of 100% Italian ancestry, are then referred to as “made members” of LCN. Members who break Omerta may be targeted for death by the group.
Gallo testified that Carozzoni ordered him to intimidate associates into leading a life of crime, though he did not know of anyone that Carozzoni or any “made” member ever killed or physically injured.
Under cross examination, Cutler asked Gallo if he made up crimes to get a better plea deal from prosecutors who spent years investigating the group and, according to Cutler, came up empty-handed and then conflated a group of Italian men who were members of a social club into a massive criminal organization.
Cutler asked, “Isn’t it true, Mr. Gallo, that the Rienzi Social Club was founded with the intention of being a networking group for Italian-Americans to help each other get ahead, and that you sometimes facilitated one member borrowing money from another member of the club? And that you never intended to intimidate or threaten anyone if they were delinquent in their payments? Wasn’t this Italians helping other Italians?”
Gallo, who had previously testified that the Rienzi Club was a front for Carozzoni’s racketeering schemes, looked confused by the question.
“Come, come, Mr. Gallo,” Cutler continued, “you previously testified that you ‘found out’ that you did things that were criminal, but did you intend to do things that were criminal at the time?”
The man, who prosecutors allege mobsters called by the nickname ‘Tuffy” because of his fearsome demeanor and hulking presence, paused, and, looking around the courtroom, began to appear a little teary-eyed. He touched his finger to his eye to emphasize he was deeply affected.
“I didn’t know it was loansharking, but I knew things were illegal, and I did them anyway,” Gallo said.
The founding members of the Rienzi Social Club said the club was meant to promote Italians helping Italians. L-R Carmine Gallo, Michael Carozzoni, Angelo Maceo and Ignatius Castiglione.
Carozzoni’s attorney asked, ‘But Mr. Gallo, isn’t it true that you consider yourself to be a proud Italian, and that you were always taught by the defendant, who was like a brother to you, to never harm your fellow paisanos?”
Gallo looked at the table where prosecutors sat, stifling what sounded like a sigh a baby might make. He said, in an indistinct voice that might be confused with someone softly blubbering, “Yes, I think I remember that.”
Cutler: So did you intend to commit extortion?
ASUSA Anna Morton: Objection, Your Honor.
Judge Andrews: Sustained.
Tears seemed to be falling down Gallo’s face, but Cutler relentlessly pressed on. “Did you intend to commit loansharking at the time you did it?
ASUSA Morton: Objection, Your Honor.
Judge Andrews: Sustained.
Cutler: You said on direct examination that you committed extortion; right?
He looked at the prosecutors at their table, who were silent, then looked at the judge, who also remained silent. Gallo hastily pulled out his handkerchief from the pocket of his suit and touched it to his eyes, then he returned the handkerchief and answered, “Yes, alas, I did.”
Cutler: Did the government tell you to say that?
Gallo appeared startled. Every eye in the courtroom was fixated on him. Tears welled in his eyes.
He said, “No, no. my goodness no.”
Cutler Do you think you committed extortion?
Gallo: Yes.
Cutler: What did you do?
Gallo, wiping a tear from his eye: I collected money from people who were afraid not to give it to me, because I had stuff on them, and they said it was extortion and I even discussed it with Don Michael and he said ‘it’s not extortion, they borrowed the money, they have to pay it back.’
After saying this, Gallo pulled out his handkerchief and covered his mouth.
Cutler: Then you did not think it was extortion?
AUSA Garrett: Objection.
Judge Andrews: You may answer.
Gallo: I had concerns, but I chose to go with what my Don told me to do.
Cutler: Did you intend to hurt anyone?
AUSA Garrett: Objection.
Judge Andrews: Sustained.
Cutler: When you were a member of the Rienzi Social Club before anybody was arrested, were you doing things intentionally to break the law?
AUSA Garrett: Objection.
Judge Andrews: That requires a legal conclusion.
Cutler: Was your intention to hurt people or help people?
AUSA Garrett: Objection.
Judge Andrews: Sustained.
Cutler: What was your intention when you were in the club?
Judge Andrews: You may answer.
Carmine ‘Tuffy’ Gallo, alleged made man of the Carozzoni Crime Family, one of a network of alleged crime families who sought to use its reputation and influence to exercise control over criminal rackets, like bookmaking and loansharking in Ohio and Southern Illinois, was a man who appeared deeply upset. The cross examination by tough-talking defense attorney Angela Cutler was clearly intended to get him to not only contradict his earlier testimony, but to unhinge his plea deal as well.
Gallo tried to compose himself, but he could not. He tried again. With all eyes in the courtroom upon him, including those of his former friend and alleged Godfather, Michael Carozonni, Gallo said, sobbing, “My intention was to prove to Don Michael that I was not so far below the standard that he holds. I was trying to prove my self-worth as a made man, and salvage his respect for me.”
Judge Andrews was staring at the crestfallen alleged mafia ‘wise guy,’ whose shoulders stooped as he looked at the floor from his seat in the witness box adjacent to the bench.
The judge wiped her eye with her finger as Gallo tried to bravely continue, “I put La Cosa Nostra above everything, above my friends, above other people….”
Gallo was shaking, trembling violently, and added in a voice seemingly about to crack under the terrible strain, “That’s what I —”
“Stop,” Judge Andrews shouted. “Okay, that’s it. You are done.”
Gallo looked up at the judge, his tears almost drying on the spot from the heat of the moment.
Cutler: But I am not done with my cross examination. This is the critical part!
Judge Andrews: I said you’re done. So sit down. I will let the government ask this victim some additional questions on redirect.
AUSA Garrett: No, nothing more, Your Honor. This poor man has been through enough.
Judge Andrews: All right, the witness is excused. You may stand down, and please be careful, dear man, of the step over, your tears may have clouded your vision.
Though still teary eyed, Gallo rose quickly and exited the courtroom with a firm and observable spring in his step while covering his mouth with his handkerchief.
Judge Mary L. Andrews won’t tolerate male victims being abused in her courtroom.
After dismissing the jury, Judge Andrews said, “Ms. Cutler, you went over the line. You could have asked him your questions and moved to the next; you didn’t have to make him cry. I am not going to have a man have a nervous breakdown on the witness stand.”
Cutler: But the prosecution said he is a made man.
Judge Andrews: He is not a made man, he is a broken man. Whether he’s telling the truth, whether the jury believes him, I think it’s necessary that there be a certain level of consideration for men’s emotional condition. You were questioning too hard. What I saw was a man in crisis. Gone are the days when a judge can sit by stony-hearted and let a male victim who is brave enough to testify be challenged in any way that might upset him. You can appeal my decision to the Sixth Circuit if you are unhappy.
Tough-talking mob attorney Angela Cutler pushed a male victim to the limits and tried to explain to the judge that it was necessary to confront the witness because even victims can be motivated to lie.
Cutler: Your Honor, Carmine Gallo is a grown man. He should not be coddled even if there is a due process gender gap. We should not always excuse men when they cry. He accused my client of ordering him to commit crimes, which my client denies. When I asked Mr. Gallo about his intentions at the time, and I was trying to explore that – an essential element of the crime is intent – you stopped me. I wanted to show that he did not think they were crimes until after he met with the prosecution who offered him a plea deal provided his testimony comported with the story they required.
Judge Andrews: Ms. Cutler, I have a right and an obligation to control the extent to which a male witness is questioned. You made your points. It’s all there, it’s on the record. And if I made a mistake, you’ll have your opportunity, if you should not be successful in gaining your client’s acquittal. But I was watching this poor man and his tears were real; I can assure you.
Cutler: I took pains to be polite to him once I saw he was whining like a little boy. I never once raised my voice.
Judge Andrews: Look, I am not saying you are not a woman or a lawyer who does not maintain her composure. I was worried about his composure. Also, I have to sentence this poor man, and what you did was, basically, ask him to make legal judgments about whether what he did in pleading guilty was to lie and that he took the prosecution’s advice, or his lawyer, to lie in order to get out of a longer prison sentence or get out from under a trial. To suggest that I would let a man take a plea deal when he is innocent is going too far. Such things do not happen in the US criminal justice system. I was the one who took his guilty plea. Are you suggesting I would take a guilty plea from an innocent man? Ninety-seven percent of all cases before me are the result of plea deals carefully worked out between prosecutors and the defense with my approval. I can tell you, in this woman’s court, in all the years I have been a judge, not one defendant ever pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit. None of them were innocent.
I thought it was extremely excruciating to watch this poor man suffer. When I tried to cut off the line of questioning, you just went right back to the line of questioning, as if you had a right to upset him and make him cry. I may not get everything right up here, but I will tell you, as a woman, it was the right decision. And before I’m a judge, I’m a woman, and there were men before there were laws, and they need to be protected. And that protection goes for every woman in this courtroom, and it includes you and the government. I am not going to allow any man to be placed in this awful circumstance and let it continue. Make your appeal, if you lose this case. I don’t want to talk about it anymore. I’m done.
Then, Judge Andrews, looking flushed in countenance, rose. Everyone rose. She exited the courtroom.
The following morning, Cutler moved for a mistrial, which Judge Andrews denied. Gallo will not be taking the stand again.
Cutler told this reporter that he will not aggressively cross-examine the next male witnesses in the case, who are expected to be members of the Rienzi social club. Their names have been shielded from the public, by order of the judge, and only their nicknames will be used to protect them from the embarrassment of being one time members of the mob.
Scheduled this week are “The Snake,” “Junior,” “Fat Joe,” “Louie the Lump,” “Skinny Dom,” “Big Al” and “The Horn.”
For the convenience of the jury in helping them promptly render a verdict as quickly as possible after the prosecution concludes its second and final closing argument on this complex case, the judge and prosecution agreed that anyone the prosecution decided were victims would be referred to by their Mafia nicknames during the trial, while the defendant and the made men the prosecution determined to have remained loyal to the defendant, Michael Carozzoni, should be referred to by their first and last names. This photograph of the Mafia reception of the wedding of Charlie the Wop, was shown at trial. L-R Antonio Campagna; Butterass, Sweet Lips, Charlie the Wop, his bride Blue Eyes, her sister, Lemon, and Ignatius Castiglione.
Outside the courtroom, Cutler told this reporter about the next spate of witnesses, “I won’t ask any more tough questions since all of these men — though tough guys on the surface and testifying about crimes that might put my client away for life — are liable to burst into tears at the drop of a tough question. The judge, a woman, like myself, will admonish me and perhaps cite me with contempt if I make any of them cry. This is an appealable issue because it is in violation of the US Constitution’s 6th Amendment Confrontation clause which holds that defendants have the right to confront, challenge and impeach their accusers.”
Acting-US Attorney Mary Ellen Dupree, in a press conference outside the courthouse, said she agreed with the judge’s decision.
“In this day and age, it is not necessary to confront male victims because by confronting them we send the signal that men should not be believed. Why would any one of these brave men, like Carmine Gallo, Fat Tony, or Greasy Thumb, ever utter a lie that he needs to be reduced to tears? Men suffer enough in society already. Today, justice was served.”
Editor’s Note: I just received the following note from the author of this story, Suneel Chakravorty. He wrote, “In the Carmine Gallo story, I forgot to mention at the beginning the following disclaimer, ‘All characters, names, and incidents portrayed in it are fictitious and any similarities or resemblance to real people, either living or deceased, places, buildings, and products however remote are intended or should be intended to be inferred as purely coincidental since they do not exist. There is one fact, however, that is 100 percent true: The US Criminal Justice system is the most perfect the world has ever known for the system never convicts an innocent person, despite a system of convicting 97 percent of all defendants through plea deals, where defendants are never overcharged but always perfectly, accurately charged, and through the generosity of the Department of Justice, are offered a reduction of their potential sentence by 75 percent by taking a plea deal, and that not one of those defendants who took a 75 percent reduction in their sentence, rather than risk losing at trial, ever did so because they were innocent, but felt the odds are stacked against the defendant, especially a poor defendant, and a 25 percent penalty, they decide, is better than an all-or-nothing-at-all trial, with its 100 percent penalty if one loses. Ask any prosecutor, and you will learn that they never make a mistake in charging the wrong person, and if ever they did, they would be the first to admit it.
