# Petition — Villano v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1885%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1976
- **Citation:** 426 U.S. 953

## Text

MICHAEL RODAK, JR.,CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1975

vo. #5 - ] 34 9

PAUL CLYDE VILLANO and PAULINE SMALDONE,
Petitioners,

VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
To the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit

IRL B. BARIS
721 Olive Street
“~~, St. Louis, Missouri 63101

and

JOSEPH SAINT-VELTRI
DAVIES and SAINT-VELTRI
538 Majestic Building
Denver, Colorado 80202

Attorneys for Petitioners

St. Louis Law Printing Co., Inc., 812 Olive Street 63101 314-231-4477

a al

INDEX

Page

ova he Wka ees Ka ndendcaehesensa eens l
I PEED Per ere fe ee Peery 2
ee Ue a SL oe ake wt eS 2
Constitutional Provisions and Statutes Involved ........ 3
cece ae weeds lt as shake eee eae 6
Reasons for Granting the Writ .............000-0008. 12
I. Sufficiency of the evidence .................-. 12

II. Illegal electronic surveillance ................. 20
ee. Se I vn cab ndo's ee es made enneds 26
IV. Double jeopardy (prior state charges) ....... c =
V. Telephone voice identification ................ 31
CE vetvencdhes tes etue kba6 bis Wee ek Oke OK 34

Appendix A—Opinion of Court of Appeals, dated January

is due Janes fered kad eae tee ceeee eee A-1
Appendix B—Judgment of Court of Appeals, dated Janu-

ee a sc vbw eb bb sna keeasseans ot A-27
Appendix C—Judgment of Court of Appeals, dated Janu-

a ay Ps EE 0 6 bee sewisccvcaveecapeaes A-29
Appendix D—Order of Court of Appeals, dated February

Boe Se GH GENIE go ence cvesevecsccescs A-31

Cases

Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969) ....... 2,22
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) ............... 30

Baker v. Hudspeth, 129 F. 2d 779 (10th Cir. 1942)..... 27

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ........... 26
Cwach v. United States, 212 F. 2d 520 (8th Cir. 1954).. 33
Dennis v. United States, 302 F. 2d 5 (10th Cir. 1962).... 28
Estes v. Texas, eee ee ee CO... wa ceeds evceacs 26
Haas v. United States, 344 F. 2d 56 (8th Cir. 1965) ..... 33
Hoffa v. United States, 387 U.S. 231 (1967) ........... 23

Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)

Kansas Electric Supply Company, Inc. v. Dun & Brad-
street, Inc., 448 F. 2d 647 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. den.
ee ee ee as 33-34

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) ........ 23
Kolod v. United States, 390 U.S. 136 (1968) .......... 23
Mares v. United States, 383 F. 2d 805 (10th Cir. 1967). .26, 29
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975) ............. 26
National Labor Relation. Board v. Carpet, Linoleum and
Resilient Tile Layers Local Union No. 419, 213 F. 2d
PE EN is o's we cn ea oe bee cee monies 33
O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969) ........... 30
Pamplin v. Mason, 364 F. 2d 1 (Sth Cir. 1966) ........ 26
Pennsyivania v. Mills, 286 A. 2d 638 (Pa. 1971) ....... 30

Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808 (1971)..... 2, 13, 20, 29

Richards v. United States, 380 U.S. 909 (1965) ........ 33
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) ........... 26, 28
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) ........... 26-27

Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F. 2d 627 (9th Cir. 1968) 26
Spindler v. United States, 366 F. 2d 678 (9th Cir. 1964),
ns ee ee Ls a bree ee 33

United States v. Altobella, 442 F. 2d 310 (7th Cir. 1971) 15, 31

United States v. Archer, 486 F. 2d 670 (2nd Cir. 1973).. 15

United States v. Barnes, 383 F. 2d 287 (6th Cir. 1967),
cert. dem. S89 US. 1060 (1968) .. 2... ccc cece 17

“ee

United States v. Bear Runner, 502 F. 2d 908 (8th Cir.

Te cep he Ocha eeearveseauN's 29
United States v. Cantor, 469 F. 2d 435 (3rd Cir. 1972)... 17
United States v. Colabella, 448 F. 2d 1299 (2nd Cir. 1971) 29
United States v. Cox, 449 F. 2d 679 (10 Cir. 1971), cert.

ce Ct oY ea a 33
United States v. Donaway, 447 F. 2d 940 (9th Cir. 1971) 17
United States v. Honeycutt, 311 F. 2d 660 (4th Cir. 1962) 17
United States v. Huss, 482 F. 2d 38 (2nd Cir. 1973). . .23, 24

United States v. Johns, 444 F. 2d 58 (Sth Cir. 1971)..... 17
United States v. McCormick, 442 F. 2d 316 (7th Cir.
So 2 ease ne gee eee 6 HR OWES Se No. 74-1464.

Pauline Smaldone,
Defendant-Appellant. |

A true copy
Teste

Howard K. Phillips
Clerk, U. S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Mary A. Sherman
Deputy Clerk

(Seal)
This cause came cn to be heard on the record on appeal from

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
and was argued by counsel.

— A-28 —

Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered that the judgment
of that court is affirmed. It is the further order of this court
that Pauline Smaldone, appellant, shall, within ten (10) days
from and after the date of the filing of the mandate of this
court in the district court, surrender himself to the custody of the
United States Marshal for the District of Colorado in execution
of the judgment and sentence imposed upon him.

/s/ Howard K. Phillips.
Clerk

J-2. 5/75

— A-29 —

APPENDIX C

JUDGMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS, DATED
JANUARY 8, 1976, RE SMALDONE

United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit

November Term—January 8, 1976

Before The Honorable Oliver Seth, The Honorable William J.
Holloway, Jr., and The Honorable James E. Barrett, Cir-

cuit Judges.
United States of America, }
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VS.

($7-YD-PL “ON “D'A)

{ €9PI-bl “ON

Paul Clyde Villano,
Defendant-Appellant. j

A true copy
Teste

Howard K. Phillips
Clerk, U. S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Mary A. Sherman
Deputy Clerk
(Seal)

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
and was argued by counsel.

— A-30 —

Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered that the judgment
of that court is affirmed. It is the further order of this court that
Paul Clyde Villano, appellant, shall, within ten (10) days from
and after the date of the filing of the mandate of this court in
the district court, surrender himself to the custody of the United
States Marshal for the District of Colorado in execution of the
judgment and sentence imposed upon him.

s/ Howard K. Phillips
Clerk

J-2. 5/75

eee

—

APPENDIX D

ORDER OF COURT OF APPEALS, DATED
FEBRUARY 17, 1976, DENYING REHEARING

January Term—February 17, 1976

Before The Honorable David T. |_ewis, Chief Judge, The Hon-
orable Delmas C. Hill, The Honorable Oliver Seth, The
Honorable William J. Holloway, Jr., The Honorable Robert
H. McWilliams, The Honorable James E. Barrett, and The
Honorable William E. Doyle, Circuit Judges.

United States of America,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VS.
Nos. 74-1463

Paul Clyde Villano, and Pauline 1-108

Smaldone,

Defendants-Appellants. ;

This matter comes on for consideration of the petition for
rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc which was
filed by the appellants in the captioned cases.

Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered that the petition
for rehearing is denied by Circuit Judges Seth, Holloway and
Barrett to whom the cases were submitted.

The Petition for Rehearing having been denied by the orig-
inal panel to whom the cases were submitted, and no member
of the panel nor judge in regular active service on the Court
having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc,

Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the sugges-

— A-32 —

tion for rehearing en banc is denied.

A true copy
Teste

Howard K. Phillips
Clerk, U. S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit

By Mary A. Sherman
Deputy Clerk

(Seal)

S

Howard K. Phillips
Clerk

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1885%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.