United States v. Lane

631 F. Supp. 1163, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27763
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DecidedMarch 25, 1986
DocketNo. 84-CR-3
StatusPublished

This text of 631 F. Supp. 1163 (United States v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Lane, 631 F. Supp. 1163, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27763 (W.D. Wis. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER

TERENCE T. EVANS, District Judge.

Douglas F. Lane, the defendant in this case, is waiting for a date to be resentenced. Now that proceedings in a related case, U.S.A. v. Tony Machi and Frank Calarco (85-CR-114), have been completed, it is appropriate that I take some action that will move the Lane case toward its conclusion. Before doing so, however, I want to make a complete record of the matters that have occurred in this very disturbing case. My comments will, of necessity, concern the Machi/Calarco matter.

Lane was convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute marijuana following a jury trial in my court on September 14, 1984. On October 31, 1984, he was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of four years. The sentence was stayed pending an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On April 15, 1985,1 had a meeting in my chambers with Agents Edward Miller of the IRS and James Dietz of the FBI. At the time of this meeting, Lane’s appeal was still pending in the Court of Appeals. During the meeting, I was advised that Lane was cooperating with the government in an obstruction of justice investigation. The investigation, which involved a scheme to reduce Lane’s sentence, centered on Tony Machi and Frank Calarco. Surreptitious tape recordings of conversations involving Lane, Machi and Calarco were played for me during the meeting, which was the first time I heard anything about what was going on.

On June 27, 1985, the Court of Appeals affirmed Lane’s conviction and returned the case to me for further proceedings. On August 14, 1985, Machi and Calarco were indicted for obstructing justice. Subsequently, I granted the joint request of the government and Lane that his sentence be modified, as Lane, according to the government, was to be a key witness against Machi and Calarco. I did not, however, go as far as both sides urged me to, as I declined the joint request to put Mr. Lane on probation at that time. Instead, I vacated Lane’s original sentence and said I would schedule resentencing after the Ma-chi/Calarco case was resolved.

Mr. Machi and Mr. Calarco went to trial on January 13, 1986 before Judge Robert W. Warren. Lane testified during the trial as a witness for the government. The jury found both Machi and Calarco guilty. On February 28, 1986, Machi and Calarco were each sentenced to serve terms of five years in prison.

A review now of Lane’s involvement in the Machi/ Calarco case is appropriate, as is a review of the question of whether or not I should continue to preside over the Lane case. Most of the factual statements that follow come from the record developed in the Machi/Calarco case.

Lane’s trial attorney was Thomas Brown. Sometime late in January, 1985, Lane went to Brown and told him an unusual story. Lane said that some weeks before, while driving on the east side of Milwaukee, he decided to stop at “Teddy’s”, a bar and nightclub located on North Farwell Avenue. Teddy’s was owned by Machi, and Lane stated he stopped there in order to see if Machi could pay him any of the $5,000-$7,000 Lane said Machi owed him on a previously made loan. As they talked, Lane said he explained his legal situation, and Machi told him he should have come to him earlier. Machi said he thought he could help Lane with his sentence, and he asked Lane how much it was worth to him. Lane said he had no idea, since he did not know what Machi was proposing. Machi, again according to Lane, pressed for an answer, and Lane said it would be worth $10,000-$30,000. Machi said he would get back to Lane.

Over the next few days Lane said he received several telephone calls from Ma-chi. Machi, according to Lane, stated he had talked with influential people and had some interesting information. He asked Lane to meet with him and bring a tran[1165]*1165script of Lane’s trial. Lane met with Ma-chi at Teddy’s and gave him a transcript. Machi stated he had made contact with people “out east.” He guaranteed Lane that, for $50,000, Lane’s 4-year sentence would be reduced to 15 months. Lane stated he asked for particulars from Machi, who told him he would get back to him. Machi told Lane not to discuss this with anyone. At this point, Lane says he decided to go to his attorney, Mr. Brown.

After hearing Lane’s story, Brown, according to Lane, said he should either stay away from Machi or go to the government with the information, since the government might be interested in investigating what seemed to be an attempt to “fix” Lane’s sentence.

After talking with Brown, Lane says he went to see Machi pursuant to an appointment previously made. At the beginning of their conversation Machi frisked Lane, looking for a recording device. Lane, of course, was not wearing one. According to Lane, Machi seemed very confident during the meeting. He repeated his statement that a reduction from 4 years to 15 months would be guaranteed upon the payment of $50,000. He raised the possibility of reducing the sentence to an even lower figure for more money. Machi said he would hold the money until the sentence modification had been achieved. Lane said he would look into raising the money. Machi told Lane to tell no one, because if he did it would not be very healthy, since the people they were dealing with were very “heavy.” All of the statements thus far attributed to Machí come from Lane. At this point, they were not corroborated.

After the last meeting, Lane says he decided to contact the government. He spoke with the Special Agent of the Internal Kevenue Service who had initially investigated his case. After Lane explained the situation, the agent said the government would be interested in investigating the matter but Lane would have to cooperate in recording conversations with Machi in order to verify what was being said. Lane agreed to do so.

The first recorded conversation occurred on March 1, 1985, when Machi called Lane and left the following message on Lane’s telephone answering machine:

MACHI: Doug, this is Tony. Tony Machi. Will you give me a jingle the first chance you get, please? I’d like to talk to you, bye.

Lane returned Machi’s call at 3:00 p.m., on March 1, and the following occurred:

MACHI: Hello, this is TEDDY’S.
LANE: TONY.
MACHI: Yes.
LANE: Hi, this is DOUG LANE calling.
MACHI: Yeah.
LANE: How ya doin’?
MACHI: I ... you’re in town I hear.
LANE: Yeah. I just got back last night.
MACHI: Well, will ya will ya come over and see me, please?
LANE: Uhm, uh, I’m gonna hafta, can we make it Monday?
MACHI: Are you here in Milwaukee, now?
LANE: Yah.
MACHI: Well, why don’t ya come over.
LANE: Oh, it’s gonna be hard to do right now.
MACHI: Why?
LANE: Because, uh, it’s my sister’s wedding on Sunday and I just have all this stuff to do.
MACHI: You mean you can’t you can’t come over here and spend five minutes with me?
LANE: (whew) Yeah, I guess I could.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
631 F. Supp. 1163, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lane-wiwd-1986.