United States v. Cintolo
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
818 F.2d 980 (1987)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
A grand jury was investigating the illegal gambling and loansharking activities of Gennaro Angiulo and his associates. Electronic surveillance revealed that William Cintolo (defendant), a criminal-defense attorney, was involved with Angiulo’s gang. A witness who had damaging information about Angiulo’s gang and its criminal activities was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. When the witness appeared before the grand jury, he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In discussions with Cintolo, Angiulo expressed concern about the witness. Angiulo and Cintolo decided that the witness should refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds and, if granted immunity, continue to assert the Fifth Amendment and be held in contempt. Cintolo, who was the attorney or record for the witness, explained the strategy to the witness. When the witness appeared before the grand jury again, he refused to testify and was granted immunity. The witness continued to refuse to testify despite the immunity order and was held in contempt and sentenced to serve 18 months in prison. Cintolo was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Cintolo was convicted on the conspiracy count and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.