U.S. Deputy Marshal loses federal appeals fight in Chicago mobster leak case

By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

Feb. 16, 2012 – Adding to the storied storyline of the 2007 “Family Secrets” trial that brought down high ranking members of the Chicago mob, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled today that a U.S. Deputy Marshal was properly convicted for leaking information.

In 2009, a federal district court convicted Deputy U.S. Marshal John Ambrose for disclosing information about hit-man Nicholas Calabrese’s cooperation with federal authorities. Calabrese was a “made” member of organized crime in Chicago, otherwise known as the Chicago Outfit.

Ambrose was on security detail to protect Calabrese, who entered the witness protection program in 2002 and implicated other mob members in crimes spanning four decades.

Calabrese admitted participation in 16 murders and knowledge of 22 others, including the murders of Anthony and Michael Spilotro, who were found buried in an Indiana cornfield in 1986. Those murders, and the exploits of the Spilotro brothers, inspired storylines in the 1995 film “Casino,” directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro.

Ambrose became known as the “babysitter” by mob leaders James and Michael Marcello, who authorities recorded discussing the Calabrese situation while in federal prison. Evidence, like fingerprints on Calabrese’s witness protection file, revealed that Ambrose was likely the “babysitter” indirectly providing the Chicago mob members with information about Calabrese.

A U.S. attorney and a FBI special agent eventually interviewed Ambrose, confronting him with the evidence against him. They did not read Ambrose his Miranda rights, which safeguard against self-incrimination when a suspect is in custody and being interrogated.

Ultimately, Ambrose admitted leaking information to William Guide, who was one of 10 Chicago cops busted, along with Ambrose’s father, in the 1980s for taking bribes.

Ambrose told authorities at one point that Guide had ties to the Chicago mob, and revealed the information to curry favor with mob members for future fugitive investigations.

But in court, Ambrose argued that certain inculpatory statements should have been suppressed because he did not receive Miranda warnings before making them.

In U.S. v. Ambrose, No. 09-832 (Feb. 16, 2012), a three-judge panel disagreed, concluding that although it was an “interrogation” for Miranda purposes, Ambrose was not “in custody.”

The appeals panel concluded that the circumstances of the interview conducted with Ambrose at an FBI building in Chicago were not indicative of “custody” for Miranda purposes, and any doubt was dispelled when the U.S. attorney told Ambrose he was not under arrest.

“In light of [the U.S. Attorney’s] statement that he was not under arrest and his reference only to the possibility of future charges, a reasonable person in that situation would have believed that he could terminate the discussion and leave,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote.

The second stage of the interview, where Ambrose confessed more information, did not require Miranda warnings either, the appeals court panel concluded, noting that “the circumstances of those conversations were inconsistent with a person who was under arrest.”

Not hearsay

The appeals panel also rejected Ambrose’s argument that the “Marcello tapes” were improperly admitted despite hearsay rules, because the government had failed to implicate Ambrose in a conspiracy theory linking him directly to the Chicago mob.

The federal district court allowed the government to introduce only portions of the Marcello tapes to prove the Marcellos actually received information about Calabrese’s status as a witness, and as circumstantial evidence that Ambrose was the one who revealed it.

“With so many layers of retelling, the reliability of the information is certainly suspect, and was properly excluded as hearsay by the court,” the panel noted. “The court allowed only the use for non-hearsay purposes and Ambrose has failed to demonstrate how that was erroneous.”

Thus, the appeals panel upheld Ambrose’s conviction for stealing government property and disclosing information without authorization, along with his four-year prison sentence.