United States v. Guy Giovannetti and Nicholas Janis
919 F.2d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
Facts
An illegal gambling enterprise, headed by Thomas Orlando, operated in Bridgeview and other Chicago suburbs between 1978 and 1987, running wirerooms and casino nights. Nicholas Janis, a gambler, owned a house in Bridgeview that was rented by Richard Merino, a bookmaker for the enterprise and a government informant. From November 1982 to July 1983, the rented house was continuously used as a wireroom for the gambling operation. The rent was often paid by Michael Gioringo, an aide to Orlando, whom Janis knew. In early 1984, Janis had a tape-recorded conversation with Orlando, offering a key to the house and asking if "everything was all right." Edward Arnold, a friend and fellow gambler, testified that Janis told him in late 1982 or early 1983 about renting the house to an acquaintance of Orlando or Merino. Arnold also noted the enterprise's phone number changed to a "southwest side" number, leading him to suspect the house was used for bets. Guy Giovannetti served as a bouncer, enforcer, and debt collector for the enterprise.
Procedural history
The government indicted fifteen men, including appellants Guy Giovannetti and Nicholas Janis, for offenses related to an illegal gambling enterprise. Giovannetti and Janis went to trial and were convicted. They subsequently appealed their convictions to this court, which is the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Issue
1. Was the "ostrich instruction" properly given to the jury regarding Nicholas Janis's knowledge of his house being used as a wireroom for an illegal gambling enterprise? 2. Was Janis entitled to a jury instruction on the statute of limitations for his alleged involvement in the illegal gambling business?
Holding
The court affirmed Guy Giovannetti's conviction. However, Nicholas Janis's conviction is reversed. The case is remanded for a new trial for Janis consistent with the principles set forth in the opinion.
Rule
The "ostrich instruction" is appropriate when there is evidence that a defendant, strongly suspecting involvement in shady dealings, deliberately avoids acquiring full or exact knowledge of those dealings. It applies to active avoidance of knowledge, not mere failure to display curiosity or negligence. The instruction should not be given when the facts present a "binary choice" between actual knowledge and complete innocence. Aiding and abetting requires the alleged aider and abettor to associate with the venture, participate in it as something they wish to bring about, and seek by their action to make it succeed, requiring knowledge of the illegal activity. For the statute of limitations, the government must prove culpable acts occurred within the statutory period, and the offer of assistance, if unaccepted, may not constitute aiding and abetting or conducting an enterprise.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.