◆ SpookStack

ornronal (Ota WO. 10 we-186 * “maT 1962 CHINO - O34 GHA, AIG NO 27 ™ OS a UNITED STATES (," ERNMENT J : bene WE Memorandum Le : ee "NED ow? i) , f va rn : Mr. Gale Rie! ; Lo pate: December 7, 1965 PA Sine t Tove lyfe Wt —\ Trower ——— fice ee Teie, Room ——. a. FROM: T. J. + totnaror if > SUE CT: Vs CARKINE TRAMUNTI, also known as, ET mC - INTERSTATIS TRANSPORTATION IN AID A OF RACKETZERING - GAMBLING . a Ge! .In a ruling handed down December 6, 1965, ‘the United States Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the District and Second Circuit Court of “ppeais in a contempt of court conviction of Al Harris, who fronted or Tramunti, a leader in the Thomas Luchese "family" of La Cosa Nostra, in a huge dice game being operated nightly in the Miami, Florida area during eariy 1963. This game, which was described at the time as oN ie he ee tetas zm ee = = - ithe largest ever to be held in Mia hi, Yeportedly operated on a nightly wank roll of $200,000. : ' OSupreme, Cour During 1962 this case was brourht! before a Federal Grand Jury -. ene Southern District of New York and Harris wos called to testify, ~ “cicuiarly regarding certain telephone calis between New York and . oflua in connection with the promotion of this game. Upon his" refusal -2 testify, claiming protection under the Fifth Amendment, Harris was canted immunity under Section 409 (1) of the Pederal Communications AR oilowing Harris’ continued refusal to testify under conditions of -.munity, he was called before a District Judge in New York's Souther Jistrict, sworn aS a witness, and the judge propounded the same questions which Harris again refused to answer. Harris was thereafter held in contempt and received a one-year sentence under Rule 42 (a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, upheld the District Court's ruling. Th The United States Supreme Court's majority opinion (5-4, with Justices Stewart, Cliark, Harlan and White dissenting) deals primariiy wit a procedural issue, ruling that the handling of this matter under 42 (a), whica the majority opinion holds is reserved for such matters as afwvonts or tne dignity of the court, the quelling of disturbances, the handiinss of insolent tactics, all within the presence and hearing of the judge, wos in error. The decision of the lower courts is reversed and this case. is xvomanded for proceedings under Rule 42 (b), which in general prescribe: +1 4 ho nandling of all criminal contempts except those specified under 42 (a) L lz. Belmont ' \ pA a - iw. DeLoach é an . i ~ Mir. mosen yee 62-4 -A1 22 523a~ a a4 Lo= ux. Sullivan { tid “1G 1 - og a 128 JAN 7 1906 _ ; =—e