Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

United States v. Luisi

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
482 F.3d 43 (2007)


Facts

Ronald Previte was a captain in the La Cosa Nostra (LCN) crime family. When the FBI launched a large-scale investigation into the Philadelphia LCN, Previte became a paid cooperating witness. The FBI learned that Robert Luisi (defendant) was also a captain in the LCN. Luisi supervised the organization’s activities in Boston. In an attempt to incriminate Luisi, Previte introduced Luisi to Michael McGowan, an undercover FBI agent. McGowan attempted multiple times to engage Luisi in an exchange of diamonds for cocaine. Luisi was to acquire the cocaine from Previte. Although Luisi agreed to consider the arrangement in a noncommittal manner, Luisi later claimed he never intended to participate in any exchange involving cocaine. Previte later met with Joseph Merlino, a Philadelphia LCN boss. Merlino was superior to Previte and Luisi in the LCN hierarchy. Previte informed Merlino of Luisi’s business opportunity and informed Merlino that he could benefit financially from the deal. At Previte’s suggestion, Merlino agreed to order Luisi to participate in the exchange with McGowan. While visiting Boston, Previte met with McGowan, and the two initiated a phone call between Merlino and Luisi to deliver the order. As instructed by Merlino, Luisi participated in the exchange with McGowan. Luisi was convicted of (1) conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and (2) possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Luisi raised, and the jury was instructed on, an entrapment defense. However, in response to a jury question, the judge implied that the jury could not consider Merlino’s influence over Luisi in evaluating the entrapment defense. Luisi appealed on the ground that the jury instruction on entrapment, as supplemented, was erroneous.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.