United States v. Alex J. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Alex J. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1986 · …failed to demonstrate how the informant's testimony was critical to his conviction. at p. 126 ≈ altered
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1986 · …he testified pursuant to a plea bargain and feared prosecution. ⚠ not in text
21 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Petition of Almond (ri, 1992-02-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petition of Almond
R.I. · 1992 · confidence medium
The First Circuit per curiam opinion in United States v. Klubock, 832 F.2d 649 (1st Cir.1987), aff'd en banc by an equally divided court, 832 F.2d 664 (1st Cir.1987), is not controlling precedent, Backman v. Polaroid Corp., 910 F.2d 10, 14 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985); C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yarbrough
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Spector, 793 F.2d 932, 936 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 221 (8th Cir.1986), United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yarbrough
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Spector, 793 F.2d 932, 936 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 221 (8th Cir.1986), United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gerardo Antonio Gomez, A/K/A Jerry Gomez, United States of America v. Mickey Crocker, United States of America v. Kelly Lynn Hanlon, A/K/A Leslie Ann Warren
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See United States v. Saterdalen, 769 F.2d 494, 496 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985). 41 As noted, here the agreement made with Tucker was limited to the conditions that Tucker plead guilty to one count and fully cooperate with the Government and testify truthfully against Crocker and the other defendants, in which case the Government would support Tucker's motion to reduce his sentence, and the Government would also not prosecute any other charges.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gomez
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See United States v. Saterdalen, 769 F.2d 494, 496 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied:, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bayard Spector (2×)
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
As this court said about a similar claim on an alleged contingent agreement with a witness, the appellant “failed to demonstrate how [the informant’s] testimony was critical to his conviction.” United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jose A. Garcia, United States of America v. Thomas W. Barker, United States of America v. Dana G. Stephenson, United States of America v. Thomas Lawrence, United States of America v. Roberto Trelles
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985). 12 A plea agreement that grants favors to a prosecution witness in return for truthful testimony about the defendants is not unlawful.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Garcia
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Cedric Payne, United States of America v. Eileen Maier, United States of America v. Ray Ransom, United States of America v. Anthony Alexander, United States of America v. Melvin Hicks, United States of America v. Marvin Bogan, United States of America v. Kim Cuellar
8th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Payne
8th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125, 126 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Marco Betancourt
6th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Fazzino, 765 F.2d 125 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 150 , 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Alex J. FAZZINO, Appellant
84-2179.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jun 20, 1985.
765 F.2d 125
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 19976
James L. Lyons, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant., John R. Osgood, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Ross, Bright, Nichol.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alex J. Fazzino seeks a reversal of his conviction for extortion on the ground that his conviction was obtained in violation of the due process clause. Fazzi-no claims that the government’s use of James Meyers as an informant and as a trial witness deprived him of fundamental due process protected by the United States Constitution. We disagree and affirm his conviction.

Fazzino, a member of the Missouri State Legislature, was charged by indictment on April 19, 1984, with two counts of extortion and one count of attempted extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The alleged extortions and attempted extortion involved the request for and payment of money to Fazzino in return for his assistance in defeating two pieces of proposed legislation involving the state’s regulation of the fireworks industry.

A trial was held in July 1984. The government’s case included, among other things, the testimony of Jerry Wald who had been granted immunity, the testimony of James Meyers who had been cooperating with the government since sometime in 1982, and videotapes and recordings of conversations and meetings between Meyers and Fazzino. Both Wald and Meyers testified that in 1983 they paid money to Fazzi-no in exchange for his promise to defeat the pending legislation. Both of the bills were assigned to a committee which Fazzi-no chaired; neither were ever called up for a hearing and consequently both died at the expiration of the legislative session.

At trial Fazzino denied ever receiving any money from Wald prior to 1983 and that amounts he received from Wald in[*126] 1983 and from Meyers were campaign contributions. Fazzino reported the money as “contributions” in January 1984 after an interview with FBI agents.

The jury convicted Fazzino of extorting $3,000 from Wald during 1983 (count III) and acquitted him of the other charges. Fazzino was sentenced to four years and a $10,000 fine. Fazzino appeals.

On appeal, Fazzino claims that an agreement between the government and the government’s witness, Meyers, irreparably tainted Meyers’ trial testimony, depriving Fazzino of the fair procedures guaranteed by the due process clause of the fifth amendment. It is Fazzino’s contention that Meyers, who was under investigation by the FBI for mail fraud, was cooperating with the government pursuant to a “de facto contingency agreement” (Appellant’s Brief, p. 14), whereby the outcome of any criminal prosecution against Meyers would depend upon the quality of evidence he obtained against Fazzino. The essence of Fazzino’s argument is that he was denied due process because the government’s agreement with Meyers improperly affected Meyers’ conduct and, more importantly, Meyers’ trial testimony thereby hampering the truth-finding function of the jury. Fazzino relies on the panel opinion in United States v. Waterman, 732 F.2d 1527 (8th Cir.1984) in which the panel reversed the district court, holding that a contingency agreement between the government and the star prosecution witness violated Waterman’s due process rights. [1]

We have carefully considered Fazzino’s argument and based upon our review of the record, conclude that it is totally without merit. There is no factual basis to support his allegation of a constitutional violation involving the testimony of Meyers. Fazzino failed to establish that there was any contingent ■ agreement between Meyers and the government and, more importantly, failed to demonstrate how Meyers’ testimony was critical to his conviction for extorting money from Wald. Fazzino was acquitted of attempting to extort money from Meyers.

In addition, there is no legal basis to support Fazzino’s argument that can be premised upon United States v. Waterman, supra. Neither the panel opinion nor the en banc decision in United States v. Waterman, supra, has any precedential value and even if the panel opinion had precedential value its holding would not apply under the facts of this case. See United States v. Dailey, 759 F.2d 192, 196-98 (1st Cir.1985).

Accordingly, we affirm Fazzino’s conviction.

1

. This case was considered by the court era banc and the judgment of the district court denying Waterman’s section 2255 motion was affirmed by an equally divided court. 732 F.2d at 1533.