A few weeks ago, Judge Weinstein promised life sentences for the two New York detectives whose entrepreneurial spirit led them to lucrative side-jobs as mob hitmen. Stephen Caracappa and Louis 
Eppolito were convicted of a racketeering conspiracy that included arranging and/or committing eight murders. But now the judge has changed his mind… it seems the five-year (??!!) statute of limitations has run out on the racketeering murder charges. Evidently, this issue had slipped Weinstein’s mind during the entire trial, during which the defense argued that the statute of limitations had run out on the racketeering murder charges. If you follow me.
How to explain Judge Weinstein’s sudden change of heart? I’m guessing the judge recently received a couple of unscheduled visitors:
Gangster #1: “Say, judge, that’s a real nice Jaguar you got out there in the parking lot. It’d be a shame if some clumsy individual were to yank off the signature hood ornament and toss it in the east river.”
Gangster #2: “Gee, that would be a shame, Ganster #1… especially since it takes 6 to 8 weeks for the manufacterer to send out a new one. Then, you probly have to pay a garage to stick it back on, all professional-like.”
The 12 jurors were instructed on the statute laws before their deliberations, but ultimately agreed with the prosecution’s argument that the murders were part of an overall racketeering conspiracy that continued through the years, finally ending less than five years ago.
After the jury came back with guilty verdicts on all counts, Judge Weinstein stated that the “mafia cops” had committed the most heinous crimes ever heard in his courtroom, and would spend their lives in prison. In his recent decision to overturn the conviction the judge admitted the men were clearly guilty on all counts, siting that pesky statute technicality as the reason they’ll get away with murder. Not only that.. our boys get brand new trials for their additional money laundering and drug convictions.
First of all, how is it that these murders have a statute of limitations? Does wrapping the murders up in a racketeering conspiracy charge negate seperate murder charges? If so, why did the prosecution choose racketeering conspiracy over murder, when racketeering is notoriously difficult to prove? I’m sure there are very satisfactory answers to these questions, but I’m really much too lazy to look them up.