Juror dissension as mistrial is declared in mob case


Juror says the rest of the panel was not considering his opinion, and was only worried about getting a guilty verdict.
Santoro's lawyer, Adam Konta, had asked the court for reasonable bail between $10,000 to $25,000, and argued the defendants had spent enough time in prison for a non-violent crime and were not flight risks.
"They should've never been remanded to begin with," Konta said during the proceeding in state Supreme Court in Manhattan. "There were no victims in this case.
"The only islands they're running to is Staten and Long."
Assistant District Attorney Gary Galperin, who told the court he intends to retry the case, had recommended the defendants remain remanded before outlining his case for each alleged mobster.
As for Santoro, Galperin referred to the stocky Staten Island man as a "schemer" and "hustler."
Prosecutors say Santoro was a key player in the Bonanno family's gambling operation, allegedly setting the prices for drugs and deciding on opening and freezing gambling accounts.
The bulk of the state's case against him is the information intercepted from a series of wiretap calls, which implicate him using mob slang referring to illegal drug and gambling activities.
"He was more than any other defendants involved in every single scheme," the prosecutor said.
Galperin also argued Santoro had been disrespectful to the court and the process. In jailhouse calls, the ADA said, Santoro referred to a judge as a "f----- b----" and said he would like to see the prosecutor set on fire and burn to death.
Santoro got a chuckle during the remarks, but Galperin didn't find it amusing.
"That doesn't give this prosecutor a warm and fuzzy feeling," he said.
The prosecutor also detailed some of the defendants' criminal history, including Santoro's 2013 guilty plea in a federal gambling case in Connecticut.
Dwyer asked the state to provide a letter detailing the defendants connection to the charges, particularly gambling and loansharking. The quartet is charged with enterprise corruption, grand larceny in the second-degree and first-degree criminal usury.

The parties will reconvene at the end of June to work out a new trial date.