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. Michael Ferrantino, Sam Cusenza, and Joseph Valentini
Citation: 738 F.2d 109Docket: 83-1577
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; June 27, 1984; Federal Appellate Court
Defendants Michael Ferrantino, Sam Cusenza, and Joseph Valentini are appealing the denial of their motions to dissolve restraining orders placed on their interests in various sludge-related corporations due to charges of conducting racketeering activities under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1963. The government sought to prevent any sale or transfer of the defendants' corporate interests during the proceedings. Initially, the defendants contested the restraining orders, arguing for a full evidentiary hearing; however, they later voluntarily stipulated to the entry of the orders after an initial hearing. On July 26, 1983, the defendants moved to dissolve the restraining orders, alleging that the evidence supporting these orders was obtained through illegal electronic surveillance by a non-neutral judge. Their motion was denied without a hearing, prompting this interlocutory appeal. The defendants assert that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal regarding the restraining orders, which they argue are collateral issues not directly tied to their guilt or innocence in the main criminal case. The Court acknowledges that while interlocutory appeals are generally not favored, they are warranted in this case because the issues surrounding the restraining orders and property forfeiture are separate from the determination of the defendants' guilt. Consequently, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal but denies the defendants' requests to stay the district court proceedings and to advance the appeal. The Court orders that both parties may seek review after the conclusion of the district court proceedings.