## Facts

- A federal grand jury in Massachusetts investigated illegal gambling and loansharking linked to a Boston location used by Gennaro “Jerry” Angiulo and associates, aided by court-authorized electronic surveillance.
- William J. Cintolo, a criminal defense attorney, represented an associate who had damaging information and was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.
- The witness initially asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination with Cintolo as counsel.
- Evidence permitted an inference that Cintolo and Angiulo agreed the witness would refuse to testify to protect Angiulo’s organization, including continuing to refuse even if granted immunity.
- Cintolo communicated and implemented this strategy as counsel, and the witness appeared before the grand jury, refused to answer, received immunity, and still refused to testify.
- The witness was held in contempt and sentenced to imprisonment after the continued refusal.
- A federal indictment charged Cintolo with conspiracy to obstruct justice and two substantive obstruction counts.
- A jury convicted Cintolo of conspiracy to obstruct justice and acquitted him on the two substantive obstruction counts; the district court imposed a prison sentence, stayed pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cintolo knowingly joined a conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1503.
2. Whether an attorney’s advice and actions regarding a client’s Fifth Amendment assertion can constitute “corrupt” obstruction when undertaken as part of a plan to impede a grand jury investigation.
3. Whether the legal standards and jury instructions improperly criminalized legitimate defense advocacy or burdened the right to counsel.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction for conspiracy to obstruct justice.
- The court held that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could find that Cintolo knowingly participated in an agreement to obstruct the grand jury’s work.
- The court rejected the argument that Cintolo’s status as counsel insulated him from obstruction liability where the evidence supported a finding of corrupt intent and conspiratorial participation.
- The acquittals on the substantive obstruction counts remained undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- On a sufficiency challenge, appellate review asks whether the evidence, with reasonable inferences drawn in the government’s favor, permits a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1503 reaches conduct undertaken “corruptly” to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, including interference with grand jury proceedings.
- An attorney may be liable under §§ 1503 and 371 when legal services are used as a means to further an agreement whose object is to impede a grand jury, rather than to provide good-faith representation.
- Advising a client to assert the Fifth Amendment may be lawful, but the privilege does not shield conduct aimed at preventing testimony after immunity removes the risk of self-incrimination, where the refusal is pursued to hinder the investigation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Cintolo’s conspiracy conviction because the evidence supported a finding that he went beyond lawful advocacy and knowingly joined a corrupt plan to keep an immunized witness from providing grand jury testimony, thereby impeding the due administration of justice.


United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980 (1st Cir. 1987)