## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged four defendants for operating a long-running criminal organization centered on illegal gambling in Massachusetts, with related money laundering, extortionate credit collection, and other support crimes.
- The government alleged three ongoing gambling businesses (sports betting, “football cards,” and video poker) and a separate arson-extortion plan to burn a North Reading restaurant to pressure its owners.
- After narrowing, the indictment still contained several hundred counts, largely money-laundering transactions, plus counts including RICO conspiracy, substantive RICO, illegal gambling business, transmission of wagering information, money-laundering conspiracy, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, extortionate collection of credit, and arson/extortion variants tied to the planned restaurant burning.
- Investigators obtained communications through a series of Title III wiretaps.
- Before trial, defendants jointly moved to suppress wiretap evidence, alleging defective authorization, lack of necessity, and lack of probable cause; the district court denied suppression.
- The government called Mark O’Connor, a lawyer and longtime friend of Dennis Albertelli, to testify about a conversation in which Dennis discussed cutting off the restaurant owners’ funds and posited that a fire could stop income, then asked “how illegal is arson?”
- Defendants asserted attorney-client privilege; the district court admitted the testimony under the crime-fraud exception.
- A jury convicted defendants of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy (or both), and additional offenses tied to the gambling and arson/extortion schemes; the district court imposed substantial sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether the Title III wiretap interceptions were admissible given challenges to statutory authorization, necessity, and probable cause.
2. Whether the attorney-friend conversation was protected by attorney-client privilege or admissible under the crime-fraud exception as communications in furtherance of arson and extortion.
3. Whether law-enforcement testimony interpreting coded or cryptic recorded conversations was permissible opinion testimony or improper speculation.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court upheld admission of the wiretap evidence, finding the initial application properly authorized and supported by necessity and probable cause.
- The court upheld admission of O’Connor’s testimony, concluding the crime-fraud exception defeated any privilege claim because the communications furthered contemplated criminal conduct.
- The court upheld admission of officers’ interpretive testimony as helpful explanation of jargon and context, not speculative narration.

## Legal Principles

- Title III requires lawful authorization and a showing of necessity and probable cause; necessity may be satisfied by a detailed affidavit explaining why traditional investigative methods are inadequate, too dangerous, or unlikely to succeed in exposing a complex enterprise.
- Probable cause for a wiretap is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, including links between targeted facilities and the suspected offenses.
- Attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud; a prima facie showing that the communication advanced criminal activity triggers the crime-fraud exception.
- Testimony interpreting coded or cryptic intercepted conversations may be admissible when grounded in experience and offered to explain jargon or context to the jury rather than to speculate about facts not in evidence.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained the defendants’ convictions, holding that the Title III wiretaps satisfied statutory authorization, necessity, and probable cause, that a lawyer’s testimony about an arson-related discussion was admissible under the crime-fraud exception to privilege, and that officers could interpret coded recorded language to aid the jury’s understanding.


United States v. Albertelli, 687 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2012)