The other Frankie Pentangeli thread made me think of this line:

"Ten to one -- ten to one shot you said -- ten to one shot he would take the 5th -- and I lose."

Presumably, Frankie did not want to testify, so his comment would seem to imply that if Michael had taken the 5th, which apparently everyone thought he would do, he (Frankie) wouldn't have had to testify.

But it seems to me that he would have had to testify in order to support Willi Cicci's testimony whether Michael took the 5th or not.

To put it another way, suppose Michael had taken the 5th? Why would Frankie not have had to testify?

Forgive the ignorant Irish, but what's the 5th amendment? That has been bugging me so much.

It's the 5th ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A person has the right to refuse to testify if the answers he would give would be incriminating.

He can't be forced to testify, in effect, against himself.

Very good point Plaw.

But is it possible that Pentangeli was talking about Willie Cicci taking the 5th? That would make more sense to me. If Cicci had taken the 5th, then Pentangeli's testimony would have been worthless because there would have been no need for corroboration.


Don Cardi

I always took the "10-1 shot" bet as a little side bet he had with FBI Guys, not as a bet that would allow him not to testify. If anything, if Michael took the 5th, Frankie's testimony would be even more important.

Good point, Plawrence. I think the only way Frankie does not testify is if Michael admitted guilt under oath. If Michael took the 5th, Frankie would have just been another witness along with Cicci to implicate Michael. You're right - it makes no sense.

That's true, DC. It could have been Cicci he was talking about, since the comment would then make more sense.

But the scene in which he says it comes right after the scene in which Michael testifies, so I always assumed it was Michael he was talking about.

Yes, but it also comes after Cicci's testimony.


Don Cardi

I think there's a simpler explanation:
Frankie, just after his narrow escape from death, was "half-dead, scared, talking out loud [to the New York detectives] about how you [Michael] betrayed him." He agreed to sign affidavits for the Congressional committee about Michael's criminal activities. But he probably balked at the prospect of testifying against him in an open hearing, where he and his abandonment of omerta would be exposed to millions of his fellow Americans. So the FBI guys told him, "Don't worry, Frankie--ten to one he's gonna take the Fifth. That's tantamount to an admission of guilt. You won't have to testify." They may have meant it. More likely, they were in on the plot to trick Michael into perjuring himself by keeping Frankie's survival secret. Since Frankie was "on ice" at an Air Force base, there'd be no way he could know that his survival was being kept secret from Michael. There'd also be no way of him knowing about Cicci's testimony if they decided not to tell him.

But even if that is the case, and Michael had taken the fifth, Willie would still have testified against Mike and they still would have needed Franks testimony to back up Willies. Right?


DS

No.
The committee was not a court of law. They had no power to indict Michael for any crimes. They did have the power to subpoena him, swear him in, and compell him to testify. If he lied under oath at that hearing (i.e., committed perjury), the committee did have the power to recommend to a US Attorney that Michael be charged with perjury. His perjured testimony would be on their record.

The beauty part: Michael might never have been convicted in any court of law of any of the crimes the committee accused him of (like running all the gambling in the US, killing Sollozzo and McCluskey, the Great Massacre of 1955). Any prosecutor who tried to would have had to find witnesses, get jurors who weren't intimidated, etc. But they wouldn't have to prove any of those crimes to convict him of perjury--lying under oath. He could be sent away for five years on each count of perjury. Here's an example from real life:

Alger Hiss was a high-ranking State Department official in the Thirties and Forties. A former Communist, Whittaker Chambers, accused Hiss of being a Communist agent, a member of his local Commie group, or "cell." The House Un-American Activities Committee called Hiss to testify. He denied the charge under oath, and said he'd never even met Chambers, much less served in same Communist "cell" with him. But thanks to the doggedness of a young Congressman and committee member named Richard M. Nixon, it was proved that Hiss had met Chambers years earlier. Hiss was convicted of perjury--lying under oath. Even though the committee never proved he was a Commie or a spy, the perjury conviction ruined Hiss.

What I think was going on here was the committee was setting a perjury trap for Michael. The idea was to get Cicci to testify there were buffers, which lulled Michael into saying he was not a killer, that he did not run the mob etc. That would have set up Pentangeli to testify that Michael did do all these things and that HE was the buffer for Cicci. As Tom said this opened Mike up for several counts of Perjury "and a whole lot more." While they probably could never have convicted him of specific crimes, the Senate could have turned over its information to the Justice Dept for prosecution. I also think it may have opened Mike to a contempt of congress citation which carries jail time. In other words, think of it as something similar to nailing Capone for tax evasion.

Thanks for the explanation.

I don't think it could be Cicci he was referring to because in the senate chambers Tom Hagen, when pleading Michaels case to allow him to read out his own statement, says, "My client has not hidden behind the 5th ammendment, though it is his right to do so."

Good example TB. Hiss went to his grave claiming his innocence, but when the USSR fell and they opend up all the KGB files it turned out that he WAS a spy.

Is it true that unlike bacfk in the day with Mob bosses pleading the fifth 157 times that now they get convicted for contempt???
I've always been curious of that



Joe Batters

Frank Costello was convicted of contempt of Congress because he walked out of one of the Kefauver hearings before they officially dismissed him. But a gangster could be convicted of contempt of court only if a judge offered him "immunity to testify" and he refused to answer after that. The guys who pleaded the Fifth dozens of times (even hundreds of times), like Tony Accardo and Sam Giancana, weren't jailed but were exposed as guys who had something to hide.