United States v. Gigante

987 F. Supp. 143 (1996)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Gigante

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
987 F. Supp. 143 (1996)

JC

Facts

Vincent Gigante (defendant) was indicted by the federal government (plaintiff) in 1990 due to extortion, mail fraud, and labor payoffs. In 1993, Gigante was indicted for the murder of six people, as well as additional extortion and labor-payoff charges. Before he could be tried, Gigante’s attorneys asked for a hearing and ruling on his competency to stand trial. In 1990, the trial judge ordered Gigante to be examined by a pair of psychiatrists, Dr. Rappeport and Dr. Schwartz. Two other psychiatrists, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Portnow, examined Gigante at the request of his attorneys. Initially, all four doctors filed reports stating that Gigante was not competent to stand trial because Gigante was incapable of understanding the proceedings or assisting in his defense (a test better known as the Dusky standard). After hearing extensive testimony from other witnesses, the court entered findings of fact that Gigante had been a major player in the Genovese crime family for about two decades and that Gigante essentially performed executive functions within that family. The court also found that for decades, Gigante had undertaken extreme measures to fake insanity, including nearly annual episodes requiring psychiatric treatment and wandering the streets in his bathrobe with a disheveled appearance. Gigante had also demonstrated significant apprehension around anyone ever using his name in Gigante’s criminal circles. Once the court entered these findings, Dr. Rappeport testified that to a medical degree of certainty, he believed that Gigante was malingering and probably competent to stand trial. Dr. Schwartz testified that he was convinced of Gigante’s fitness for trial. Dr. Halpern refused to give credit to the court’s findings or change his opinion. Dr. Portnow testified that Gigante was fit for trial in 1991 but had been incompetent to stand trial since 1995 due to worsening brain disease, which Portnow based on behavior he believed to be new, but that Gigante had actually exhibited over the past two decades.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nickerson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership