Record

Court opinion

1999-06-21

CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion

United States v. Forman, 180 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 1999)

Sixth Circuit opinion of June 21, 1999 on Theodore Forman's interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss a new charge of converting government records; it recounts the 1,200-page IRS report from the Detroit investigation of Vito Giacalone, 'a reputed leader of the Detroit mafia', and affirms.

Date
1999-06-21
Kind
court-opinion
Retrieved
2026-10-12
Docket
No. 98-1111 (6th Cir.); 180 F.3d 766
Rights
Opinion of a United States court. Works of the federal judiciary are in the public domain in the United States. The text was read on CourtListener.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, argued March 18, 1999, decided June 21, 1999. The opinion states: “During 1990, the Organized Crime Strike Force of the United States Attorney’s Office in Detroit began an investigation of Vito Giacalone, a reputed leader of the Detroit mafia, and his attorney, Nathaniel C. Deday LaRene. An IRS agent prepared a Special Agent’s Report (SAR) concerning the case. Included in this 1200-page report were transcripts from grand jury proceedings” and the names and addresses of witnesses.

It recounts that the case file was sent to the Justice Department’s Tax Division in Washington, where Forman worked, around March 1992; that “In October 1992, federal agents conducting a separate investigation of Giacalone executed a search warrant at his office where they unexpectedly found a photocopy of the SAR”; and that Forman’s fingerprints were found on some of the copied pages. Forman was acquitted of obstruction of justice and convicted of criminal contempt, a conviction reversed in 71 F.3d 1214; the government then charged him with theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641.

On his appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss that charge, the court concluded: “the judgment of the district court is affirmed.” The 1995 opinion dates the start of the Giacalone investigation to 1992 and this one to 1990; the discrepancy is in the opinions.