If the GF film were secret FBI surveillance tape, would the video alone have enough "smoking gun" evidence to convict Vito of anything? In the opening scene there are lots of implied crimes: buying judges, gifts for Bonasera, Johnny and the Baker. Of course GF2 shows outright an murder of Fanucci, but in GF1 things aren't that clear for Vito.

Of Course. Dead as meat. They can easily convict him of giving orders in a crime organization.

Yeah, accessory to murder,racketeering, stuff like that he'd be sent to "college" easily.

I respectfully disagree. Even if a surveillance tape of the Don's conversations in his office on Connie's wedding day were able to film everything, and pick up every word distinctly, what would it show? If the tape picked up Bonasera whispering "kill them" to the Don, it would have picked him up saying, "That I cannot do." Later he simply tells Hagen, "Give this job to Clemenza"--no details as to what the job entails. When Nazorine asks for help with making Enzo a citizen, he simply tells Hagen, "Give it to a Jew Congressman from another district." No crime there. And all he said to Johnny about Woltz was, "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." No details, either. The Don was a careful man.
Even if they bugged his office at the Genco Olive Oil Company when Sollozzo came calling, what would they have heard? That the Don, an upstanding citizen, said no to a scheme for protecting the drug traffic.

I would think that if surveillance equipment was as sophisticated as today, Don Vito wouldn't have been so open with his conversations. He would have communicated ala Joe Pesci and DeNiro in "Casino" using code.

For the sake of the question, if he was on tape, I think it would have been enough to cause him plenty of aggravation if not outright arrest. Of course we must remember he had most of the judges and police in his "pocket". It would have taken a group such as the "Untouchables" to nab him! Only if he didn't pay his taxes...

wow, interesting topic, i've never thought of this before! I agree with turnbull in some ways, he is never seen to be directly, explicitly involved in anything illegal in the first GF, as far as I can recall. In GF 2, of course there's the murder of Fannuci, which might get Vito into some hot water, and the stealing of the rug, which he was an accesory to.

You know, now that I think about it it's all assumed. The Godfather alone could not put Vito in hot water.Damn, I've really been out of it today. Must be those painkillers I'm on

Still don't agree Turnbull. The movie shows clearly that Vito is in charge of a CRIME organization. That stands on his own as a crime. Thus, they can convict him.

The key word here is "video". Vito is never seen doing anything illegal, and without audio to implicate the Don in any criminal activity, Vito would've been innocent of any charges.

It is my opinion that most "crime figures" aren't ever really "video taped" doing anything illegal.
There are many tapes of Gotti, but none showing him doing anything illegal. I think the Feds use taping as a foundation to make a case against organized crime.

Very true. Tapes are especially useful in "conspiracy" cases, like RICO cases. A straight felony conviction almost always requires two witnesses against the defendant--a primary witness and a "corroborating" witness (someone who can back up the primary). That's why Vito gave orders only to Hagen, alone, and Hagen gave orders to others alone. But a conspiracy case only requires one witness plus some backup evidence. The Feds had plenty about Gotti on tape (including his admitting that he ordered the killing of Robert DiBernardo because "he wouldn't come in when da boss called him"). But the main use of the tapes was to back up Sammy Da Bull's testimony.

But MM Floors, look at it this way. The Feds, even in the real world, know who are bosses of crime families, many times for years before they are ever arrested, if arrested at all. How many times have we heard on the news for instance about these figures, with media even referring to them as Dons/crime bosses? As crazy as it seems, I don't think you can arrest someone for having the title of crime boss, without any real proof, even if you do know it's a fact.

Look at the senate hearings of Michael when they asked that question (more or less); if he was GF of a family and head of a crime organization. The answer was something like GF is a term of respect used within Italian families, etc. The crime boss could easily say he doesn't know where that title came from and blame the media and/or others for "unjustifiably" giving him that title. Do you know what I mean??
Which is why, I imagine, The Teflon Don evaded arrest so long.

It's a matter of everyone knowning it, but no one ever able to prove it, which makes TB's explanation of having the two witnesses and corroborating witness make sense.

TIS

The Italian Stallionette:

You make some interesting points. I think what we should remember is the history of "organized crime" and how it has evolved.

It started more or less as a way for Italian immigrants to police themselves, and naturally there were men that took advantage of this situation [Fannuci]. Then there were men that got some organization, and called them "familys". These were men that basically gave the public what they wanted, and usually restricted their violence to themselves, such as Don Vito did. Remember his speeches to Sollozzo and before the 5 familys. They also had a sense of justice and fairness ["your daughter still lives"]. The dons placed "buffers", between themselves and the activities.

It is my thinking as time went on, many of the younger members wanted to move up, not so much for the money, but for the power and glamour, just like Michael said to Kay. It has been said that recruitment shot up with the release of the "Godfather", as the film somewhat "glamorized" mob life. It was even reported that Nicky Scarfo, wanted to be like the old timers, and hated when they did away with running boards on cars.

As time went on, the mob self destructed more and more by internal strife, that ended in assasinations, especially in the Philly mob. Today the mob is a mere shawdow of itself and the way it used to be. Yes, it still does exist, but today they have competition in the form of other "mobs" of other ethinic backgrounds.

So far this is the best treat of 2003. It started in 2003. I like it because I'm going to do a law degree the coming 4 years. I want to be a lawyer too.

But, besides that, normally giving orders is a crime too. Although you don't see/hear Vito say it loud and clear(That's a important difference between Vito and Mike, Mike talked a little louder). That's the point. After reading your posts I'm in doubt. There is simply no 'hard' evidence.

Rises another question for me. Maybe it was enough, a video, to convict the mobboss. But they didn't because It wouldn't sentence him for life-time in jail. Maybe the Feds are waiting for better evidence to get him totally nailed.

MM, since you're interested in law:
For many years, a Mob boss who was careful was practically immune to arrest. If he hid his money carefully and spent it conservatively, lived modestly, gave orders to one person at a time without witnesses, and maintained a "legitimate" job and paid taxes on it, he had little to fear from the police. That's what prevailed during Vito's era. Of course, too many mobsters were too stupid and greedy to do so, and many were imprisoned for income tax evasion. But others got away with it. As Johnny Ola said here, the police knew who the Dons were. But, unless they caught them in the act of committing a crime, or had more than one witness against them, the authorities were powerless to convict them. Smart Dons and gangsters like Carlo Gambino, Frank Costello and Meyer Lansky spent little or no time in jail.
Today, the RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) Act has made it far easier to convict a gangster. If the authorities had enough tapes on Vito today, they might be able to build a case against him--especially if someone below him talked.

MM Floors, good luck with that law degree. I have always found the law interesting although at times unfair. I know nothing about the legal system in the Netherlands, as far as this topic goes of convicting mobsters. Do you know if it is much different than here in the U.S.?

Can you imagine how frustrated the Feds must have gotten, wanting to arrest these Don's for serious charges, and can only get them on tax evasion?

Btw, I agree this is a good topic and one I don't think anyone has started before.

TIS

Thx for this extra info. But why is it easier to convict someone? What does this RICO Act add to the standing law-system.

TIS: The Dutch system is far more different then yours is. One big difference is the death-penalty. That's impossible here (And I think this is good). But that's not the only thing. Another big difference is the way you people vote for presidents/governors etc. You vote like this: (For example) Florida is worth 10 votes. The winner in this district gets the full 10. By us it's just the amount of votes. If you get 100 votes and the other 101, that doesn't make a difference. Then they split (In our example) 10 places to 5/5. So you don't have the full. Maybe I told it a little bit weird, but I hope you understand.

And ofcourse we are proud on or International Court in The Hague.

Little adding for TIS about her question over our law-system.

Well as I said it's very different. But after today I think it's the most stupid law-system in the world!

A marine (from the Dutch Marines Army) has shot down a Iraq man. Now he's pulled of the mission and there is a investigation going on. About when/why etc. This is STUPID. I don't have words for it. America isn't doing this on their men who fight for their country aren't they?

Given that conviction takes 12 unanimous jurors, and we hardly have unanimity on this board, the "jurors" on this board might get stuck in a hung jury, but wouldn't convict!

I generally agree with Turnbull, that a surveillance tape alone (I assume both audio and video) would be insufficient for a conviction of the Don. The FBI would need the tape plus other evidence, like Hagen's turncoat testimony or a clear money trail.

Puzo himself says that GF is more about family, not crime. He doesn't get into the details of the crimes.

RICO makes it a crime, with double-digit sentences, to conspire to be part of a racketeer-influenced organization. In other words, no corroborating witness is needed--just one witness and perhaps some taped evidence. Equally important: victims of organized crime also can be indicted under RICO. For example, if you owed money to a Mob loan-shark, and you couldn't pay back, the Mob would take over your business and make you run it for them. This would create a RICO case against you--and you could go to jail for 20 years. Naturally, you'd be happy to cooperate with the government in testifying against the Mob, rather than go to jail for 20 or 50 years.

I'm playing both sides against the middle here, but what about the meeting with the other Dons? In that meeting they agree to run drugs, and Vito to supply politicle protection. Thats pretty illegal.