Despite chaos, no mistrial in Philadelphia mob case
PHILADELPHIA — A foreman has resigned. Another juror has fallen ill. And a third juror in a Philadelphia mob case suddenly recalls knowing something about a defense witness, and not liking him.
The federal jury is seemingly in chaos two weeks into deliberations. U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno denied a mistrial on Friday and instead ordered a newly configured panel to start over.
The 10-week trial involves reputed mob boss Joseph “Uncle Joe” Ligambi, 73, his alleged underboss and five others. They are charged with racketeering, sports betting, loansharking and making threats to collect street loans and other debts.
The original foreman remained on the panel on Friday despite saying he had been influenced by his fellow juror's attack on the defense witness. The mob lawyers wanted him and another juror removed because of their reaction to the juror's outburst. That would have exhausted the supply of three remaining alternate jurors.
Robreno instead removed only the woman who attacked the witness's credibility, and told the others to start from scratch. It was not the first time that's happened since deliberations began on Jan. 8.
One juror fell ill on Tuesday and was replaced.
Ligambi could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted of all of the charges.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.