Analysis: Frank Calabrese Sr.'s testimony so far
Reputed Outfit killer and crew boss Frank Calabrese Sr. was always talented at mob sitdowns.
Or as his attorney, Joseph R. Lopez, prefers to call them: alternative dispute resolutions.
In a sitdown, when two crews butted heads and couldn't agree on something, they would both have their say and abide by the decision of a mob boss.
Calabrese Sr., at first, treated his testimony a bit like a sitdown, hoping to tell his story the way he wants.
He didn't take into account U.S. District Judge James Zagel.
Zagel isn't interested in irrelevant testimony - at least irrelevant from Zagel's point of view, and that's pretty much the only point of view that matters when it comes to deciding what gets into trial and what doesn't.
So when Frank Calabrese Sr. wants to talk at length about how his family stole from him, including photos of some of his classic cars he ways were taken from him, Zagel shuts him down
No photos. No details.
Frank Calabrese Sr. can't prove his family stole the cars.
So he can't testify about it.
Calabrese Sr. also violated a court rule by continuing to testify even after the prosecution would object to his testimony.
Calabrese Sr. was supposed to wait for the judge to rule on the objection, but Calabrese Sr. would try to get his testimony in, so the jury could hear it.
Zagel threatened him with contempt.
Throughout his testimony, Calabrese Sr. is chomping at the bit to provide context to his life.
He's the loanshark who never muscled anyone for a payment, he says.
He's the guy who hung out with mobsters, did business with mobsters but wasn't part of the mob, he says.
He's the man who says he loves his brother and son, but has seen them both try to bury him in their testimony, he says.
In short, he may accused of 13 murders, but he's really not a bad guy, according to Calabrese Sr.'s testimony.
Bad guy or not, at the end of the trial Monday, the judge eliminated another key element to Calabrese Sr.'s defense.
Here's the background to understand the decision:
Calabrese Sr.'s brother, Outfit killer Nicholas Calabrese, told jurors about murdering people for the mob with Frank Sr.
Corroboration came from Calabrese Sr.'s son, Frank Jr. He told jurors about his father describing some of those same murders to him in detail. To back up his testimony, he recorded those statements, which were played to teh jury.
The uncle and nephew have testified they haven't communicated with each another for years. That means they couldn't coordinate their testimony.
To counter their testimony, Calabrese Sr. has to show they must have gotten together to make up corroborating stories.
On Monday, Calabrese Sr. testified that his son, Frank Jr., told him in prison that he was exchanging letters with his uncle, Nicholas.
In a blow to Calabrese Sr.'s defense, the judge decided to strike the testimony.
After all, the judge reasoned, Calabrese Sr. has told jurors they shouldn't trust the word of his son.
So why should Calabrese Sr. place any faith in his son's account of communicating with his uncle, the judge asked.
Comments
Steve, thanks again for the great coverage. I look forward to your posts.
Are you saying the judge struck Calabrese Sr's entire testimony or just the part about his son communicating via letters with the uncle? it seems unlikely the entire testimony could be struck, isn't he supposed to be allowed to testify?
Any word on whether or not Marcello or Paulie will testify? Seems to me the case againt Schiro is pretty weak..but Marcello may feel a little pressure to try to clean some things up.
What other witnesses did Lombardo's attorney call? How about Calabrese's lawyer, is he calling other people?
STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: No, the judge just struck the portion of his testimony concerning the communication between his son and his uncle.
Neither Marcello nor Schiro is expected to testify.
Lombardo has called all his witnesses. They included Peter Wacks, a retired FBI agent who testified that Emma Seifert, the widow of slain businessman, Daniel Seifert, never told him that she recognized one of the masked gunmen as Lombardo. This runs counter to Emma Seifert's testimony.
Lombardo also called a series of witnesses to suggest that he actually had a real job and did do work at Seifert's business.
Calabrese Sr. has called a few witnesses, whose main purpose was to call into question Nick Calabrese's account of the 1983 murder in Cicero of Richard Ortiz and Arthur Morawski.
Posted by: laura | August 21, 2007 12:41 AM
Steve, thanks for all your hard work on this case and taking the time to answer so monay reader questions. That said, just one more ....
What testimony/evidence did Lombardo offer to support his withdrawal defense and what is your take on the strength of that defense?
STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: Lombardo's main defense was that he got on the stand and said he wasn't part of any Outfit.
He also had several witnesses say he worked at legitimate jobs through the years.
Lombardo, though, has run into a slight problem with his withdrawal defense.
On the one hand, Lombardo said he was never part of the Outfit.
So it makes it hard to withdraw from something you never were part of.
The judge is going to allow Lombardo's attorney, Rick Halprin to argue the following:
My client was never part of the Outfit, but if you believe he was, he withdrew from that alleged conspiracy after he got out of prison in 1992.
Now, I'm sure Halprin will argue it much more artfully than I just stated it, but he's going to run into a problem.
If Halprin makes such an argument, the prosecution can point out the inherent contradictions in that defense.
Posted by: The big guy | August 22, 2007 05:27 AM