Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. John Malizia, Frank Costanzo, Alan Cummings and Larry Quartiero
Citations: 720 F.2d 744; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15764Docket: 83-1131
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 27, 1983; Federal Appellate Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the convictions of John Malizia, Frank Costanzo, Alan Cummings, and Larry Quartiero for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), citing misuse of the statute by prosecutors. The appellants were convicted in a jury trial for conspiring to fix horse races by drugging horses and betting on undrugged ones. Although their actions violated New York Penal Law Sec. 180.50, which classifies such tampering as a class A misdemeanor with a maximum one-year sentence, this did not meet RICO's requirement for a predicate offense punishable by more than one year. The government based its RICO charges on New York Penal Law Sec. 180.40, a class D felony, which prohibits bribing sports participants to not give their best efforts. However, the court found that the facts of the case did not fit the statutory definition of sports bribing, as the statute is concerned with inducing participants to lose or to reduce their margin of victory, not with tampering with animals involved in contests. Section 180.40's interpretation is informed by its historical context, tracing back to New York's initial prohibition of bribing sports participants in 1921, specifically targeting baseball players. Subsequent amendments in 1935, 1941, 1945, 1951, and 1952 expanded the scope to include various sports and officials, prohibiting bribes intended to influence game outcomes or officials' decisions. Notably, in 1952, the law explicitly prohibited bribing referees, while maintaining that other participants could only be influenced to lose or limit victory margins. A significant revision in 1965 rephrased this as a prohibition against failing to give one's best efforts. In the present case, the appellants did not request Veno to refrain from giving his best efforts; rather, they sought his assistance in drugging competing horses to facilitate victories. Since this type of bribery is not explicitly prohibited under N.Y. Penal Law Sec. 180.40, the convictions are reversed and the case is remanded to dismiss the indictment.