The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to bribe the Chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority. Pansini complained that agents of the State Liquor Authority had entered his bar and grill and without cause seized his books and records. This raid was in reprisal for his failure to pay a bribe for a liquor license. Pansini's complaint was just one of many. Pansini agreed to be wired. Pansini had a conversation with an employee of the Authority where the employee advised Pansini that the price for a license was $10,000 and suggested that he contact attorney Harry Neyer. Neyer told Pansini that he worked with the Authority employee before and that the employee was aware of the going rate on liquor licenses downtown. An eavesdrop order was obtained from a Justice of the State Supreme Court to place a recording device in Neyer's office. From that evidence, a second-order permitting the installation of a recording device in the office of one Harry Steinman was obtained. A conspiracy was uncovered involving the issuance of liquor licenses for the Playboy and Tenement Clubs, both of New York City. D was indicted as 'a go-between' for the principal conspirators, who though not named in the indictment were disclosed in a bill of particulars. Portions of the recordings were received in evidence at the trial and were played to the jury. D objected. The parties have stipulated that P had no information upon which to proceed to present a case to the Grand Jury, or on the basis of which to prosecute D except by the use of the eavesdrop evidence.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.