# Opposition Brief — Marchese v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_1039%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1971 - **Citation:** 402 U.S. 1012 ## Text In the Supreme Court of the Gnited States OctToBER TERM, 1970 No. 1474 Ia@nazio MARCHESE, PETITIONER v. Unitrep States oF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPINION BELOW The per curiam opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. A) is not yet reported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on January 27, 1971. A petition for rehearing was denied on March 1, 1971. Mr. Justice Harlan extended the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to April 30, 1971, and the petition was filed on March 16, 1971. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. STATEMENT After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, petitioner and one Cuomo were convicted of transporting a stolen security in foreign commerce and of conspiracy to commit that offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314 and 371. On October 27, 1970, petitioner was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of five years on the conspiracy charge and ten vears on the substantive count. The court of appeals affirmed per curiam (Pet. App. A). The evidence is set forth in the opinion below. In essence it shows that in October 1969, five United States Treasury bills, each having a face value and approxi- mate market value of $1,000,000, were stolen from a banking concern in New York City. During that same month in New York City, co-defendant Cuomo asked an accountant, one Ploss, to negotiate one of the stolen bills in a manner which would preserve the anonymity of the owner. Ploss said that this could be done in Europe; he agreed to do so in exchange for one-half of the net proceeds above $500,000. In November 1969, Ploss went to Switzerland but the attempted negotia- tion resulted in his arrest, the seizure of the bill, and Ploss’ deportation to the United States. ' Upon Ploss’ return petitioner, who had known both Ploss and co-defendant Cuomo for some time, tele- phoned Ploss. He told Ploss that he wanted to meet H 4 3 with him and that was ‘‘worried about the money.’’ Ploss refused to participate in any meeting and peti- tioner then told him to check with Cuomo. Thereafter, in early February 1970, petitioner met Ploss. He told Ploss that he owed $250,000 for the United States Treasury bill and that his life was in dan- ger; he asked Ploss to give back the money resulting from the bill’s negotiation. Remarking that petitioner must be ‘‘crazy’’, Ploss stated that he had been unable to negotiate the bill and that his effort to do so had resulted in his arrest. At petitioner’s request Ploss produced documents showing his arrest in Switzerland. _ ARGUMENT Petitioner’s contention that the evidence was in- sufficient to prove his part in the conspiracy is without merit. Petitioner’s statements to Ploss, after the latter had returned from his foreign travel, were sufficient to show his relationship with both Ploss and Cuomo and his participation from the start in the illegal venture. See Opper v United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93-94. Peti- tioner’s guilt of the substantive offense is established by familiar principles, since Ploss’ travel with the stolen security in furtherance of the conspiracy was binding on petitioner. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-648. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully sub- ¢ 4 mitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. ERWIN N. GRISWOLD, Solicitor General. WiLL WIison, Assistant Attorney General. Roger A. PAvuLey, EDWARD FENI«, Attorneys. May 1971. xv U.S. Government Printing Office: 1971—423-997/627 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_1039%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.