Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
frank-randaccio — Part 07
Page 17
17 / 18
The government and the defendant, Frederico.
Randacoio stipulate that on Tebruary 5, 1965, a
witness, who is not being called to testify, was
in a.position to overhear, but not see, certain
activities in an apartment in the City of Buffalo.
That apartment, occupied by a person who is not a
defendant in this case, is located approximately
nine-tenths of a milg fron 60 Manchester Place
/Natarelli's address/.
At 7:50 P.M. on that evening,
Frederico Randaccio was heard arriving at the
apartment and talking to the occupant of that
apartment.
The TV, which had been turned on, was.
then turned up louder.
Continuous loud TV ensued
for the balance of the evening, during which no
other sound, movement or conversation was heard
indicating whether Frederico Randaccio remained or
left the premises.
commenting on the alibi defense supposedly raised by the February 5, 1965,
log stated:
. The alibi offered was far from compelling..
Calabrese's testimony indicated that Randaccio
arrived at Natarelli's place at about 8:30 or
9:00p.m.
There is nothing in Calabrese's story.
which is inconsistent with Randaccio's being nine-
tenths of a mile away at 7:50. (United States v..
Caci, (2nd Cir. 1968), 40l F. 2d 664, 670).
On March 24, 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States in
the Giordano case remanded this case for further proceedings.
The question
RANDAccIo grew out 'of his illegally overheard conversations or conversations
occurring on his premisss. Counsel for the Defendant, FREDERIco G. RANDACCIO,
in the hearing which was held on August 27 and 28, l969, and in his motion
papers sworn to on October 3, l969, indicated that in his opinion the
evidence developed at the hearing, both oral and documentary, more appro-
priately justifies a new trial on newly discovered evidence, and not as the
result of any of the evidence being "tainted" as a result of illegal. electronic.
eavesdropping.
Therefore, it is the Government's position that the question
RANDaccIo grew out of.his illegally overheard conversations or conver
sations
occurring on his premises.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic