This might be an old topic but what is the significance about Frankie complaining about Michael not taking the 5th during his testimony? How did that make Frankie have to testify or place him in danger?
thank you

Well, if Michael took the fifth, it's possible that Cicci's testimony would have been enough to lay the foundation for Michael's indictment without Frankie testifying.

The Senate hearing was just that, a hearing. The film presented it almost like a trial. It's a little misleading.

The 5th? Could you explain it a little more lucidly? I can't remember anything like 5th from Part II. Maybe my copy is a cut one.

The reason Frankie is complainting about Michael not taking the Fifth is that it meant Frankie would have to go before the committee and testify that he got direct orders from Michael to murder people and to commit other crimes. The only evidence the committee had was from Cicci, who said he never received a direct order from Michael Corleone to do anything illegal. This meant that their case against Michael was circumstantial at best.

Pentangeli made an immunity deal in which he was not prosecuted for anything, and got to live under Federal protection outside of a prison in exchange for an affidavit implicating Michael in criminal activity, and he also promised to testify against Michael if necessary. This means he broke Omerta, and disgrace himself annd his family.

He was hoping Michael would take the fifth, which most people see as admitting guilt. When he didnt, Frankie knew he would be the next person called.

I guess I see it.

Frankie already gave an affidavite about the family in which he already broke the silence. So I do not see the problem with him testifying. In this case he got to deny his previous statements. It seems that the scene in the government apartmemt was for dramatic effect.

Its one thing to give an affidavit to the Authorities, and it is quite another to go to a publichearing and announce what you know to the world.

Right. His testimony in open court would supercede his written testimony.

To WT: the 5th amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from compelling a person to testify against themselves in a criminal proceeeding unless they are given immunity from prosecution.

Just to add to dt's and Olivan'ts excellent posts:
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (part of our Bill of Rights) prohibits defendants from being compelled to testify against themselves. If you are a defendant in a criminal trial, you do not even have to be sworn in as a witness--you can remain silent throughout the trial and let your lawyers do the talking. Most criminal defendants do just that. Juries don't hold it against them--they've seen all those cops-and-lawyers movies and TV shows, and know how a lawyer can tear a witness to pieces. Only very confident--or very foolish--defendants agree to be sworn in and testify.
A Committee of the US Congress (like the one that Michael faced) is not a law enforcement agency, a prosecutor, or a court of law. It can hold investigations and hearings, and has the power to subpoena witnesses. Unlike in a criminal trial, the witness must be sworn in and take the stand. The only Fifth Amendment privilege the witness enjoys is that he can say, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me." Gangsters are routinely called before Congressional hearings, and that't the answer they give. If a witness refuses to appear, he can be cited for contempt of Congress. If he lies under oath, he can be cited for perjury. Both will result in serious jail time.
Frankie signed his affidavits against Michael as part of his deal with the authorities: he'd implicate Michael, and they'd protect and take care of him for the rest of his life. But signing affidavits didn't mean that Frankie had to testify against Michael--it was, as far as he and the FBI knew, simply "insurance" in case they had to use the affidavits against Michael. I'm sure the FBI was reasonably certain that Michael would "take the Fifth" when asked those embarrassing questions. That's what all previous gangsters did when called as witnesses. As far as they were concerned, it'd be tantamount to admitting guilt. If Michael were asked "Were you responsible for the murders of the heads of the Five Families in 1950," and he replied, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me," what would that tell millions of viewers watching the hearing on TV--that he was, in fact, responsible for those murders. Although Michael couldn't be prosecuted for perjury with that answer, his "legitimate" front would be destroyed. And there'd be no reason for Frankie to testify, or for his affidavits to be used. He would, as he probably assumed, disappear from sight.

But Roth knew that Michael (unlike other major gangsters), was obsessed with appearing legitimate. Through Questadt, he manipulated the Senate committee to catch Michael in a perjury trap by keeping Frankie's survival secret, and tricking Michael into thinking that Cici was the only witness against him. When Cici said he never got a direct order from Michael, he felt he could get away with giving lying answers under oath to those embarrassing questions. Then they sprang Frankie on him. Michael wasn't expecting Frankie--and Frankie wasn't expecting that he'd be needed to testify because he, like the FBI guys, thought Michael would plead the Fifth.

Great post, TB

Slightly off topic- I've always thought that forcing immunity on some poor bastard who's obviously not a mobster is unfair.

Example: Joe Schmo borrows shylock money and his name gets picked up on a wiretap. Two years later he gets called to a grand jury and tries to take the fifth, then the prosecutor comes back with an immunity order.

Now, Joe Schmo either:

a) tells the truth and gets repercussions from the mob.

b) lies and eventually gets charged with perjury.

c) refuses to testify and gets jailed for contempt.

Joe Schmo is screwed. It doesn't seem like a fair system.

Thank you TB. The item I was missing (or hadn't paid attention to) was that Michael did not know of Frank's existance. In fact as he testified, Michael might not have known about the affidavit until the end of the testimony.

It is clear now.

Thank you

You're right, PB. "Immunity to testify" is the way judges and prosecutors combine to get around the Fifth Amendment by using "little fish" to catch "big fish." The logic is, "I want to nail Mr. Big Fish. You're a witness, Little Fish, an accomplice in his crime. If I tell you that you won't be prosecuted for any crimes you admit under oath, you won't be incriminating yourself because there will be no criminal charges as a result. Therefore, the Fifth doesn't apply to you." Yeah, sure. Then, the moment you leave the courtroom, Mr. Big Fish's associates will whack you for being a rat. And if not, everyone on the planet will know you're an admitted criminal. Maybe you won't go to prison. But you'll never hold a job again, etc. The alternative is to go to jail indefinitely for "contempt of court."

Not to mention that the Feds and State authorities have a zillion ways to welch on their promises of immunity.

I suspect we may see this process in action in the upcoming NBA referee case and the Michael Vick case.

You're right, DT. The Feds introduced a superceding indictment with new charges to scare Vick's co-defendants into testifying against Vick.


Man that guy screwed up.

Vick's going away. I imagine he'll plea and get two years and a huge fine.

Just goes to show you that the US Government are the REAL criminals. Hell the only difference between them and the Mafia which they claim to despise, is that the Mafia is more truthful when it comes to your choices; the Feds will tell you to your face they'll give immunity, and then turn around and charge you on a lesser crime. They're lying, honorless scum.

Who's Frank Pentanali?

I have been meaning to correct that. I misspelled Pentangeli.

Sorry.

As I watch the GFII now on AMC, how could Micheal not know that Frankie was still alive. With all of his contacts.

As noted before: Though Michael controlled the New York "olive oil business" through Frankie, he probably left local police contacts exclusively in Frankie's hands--the better for Michael to appear "legitimate" in Nevada by limiting the number of people who knew he was Frankie's boss. The real question is: why didn't Tom know about it? As he told Michael: "Our people with the New York detectives said he was half-dead, scared, talking out loud about how you betrayed him." Well, where were your contacts when you advised your one and only client that it was safe to perjure himself under oath? Duh-h-h, Tom!

Thank you for the information. My true question was why did Micheal and his organization not know about Frankie's survival. You have answered that.

Simple. The NY 'contacts' were not written in until convenient to the plot. One of several unexplained but excuseable inconsistencies in GFII (all discussed here in the past) which were apparently necessary in order for the complicated weaving of the story to work.

After all, how interesting would it be for Michael to have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, possibly making it unnecessary for Frankie to testify and subsequently recant his sworn affidavit after the shock of seeing his brother, who must've been flown in virtually overnight AFTER Michael having learned Frankie was alive and about to get him convicted?

Not too interesting, probably. And probably not worth discussing all these years later.

Apple

Well, I guess Mr. Schmo shouldn't have chosen to borrow in the first place, then he wouldn't be faced with the other 3 choices presented.

You may be right, pizzaboy, it isn't fair. But as President Kennedy once said,:

"Life isn't fair..."

That is a common lament these days. What Schmo fails to acknowlege is that he is a facilitator. Afterall, organized crime is providing a service that without demand would not exist.

Apple, you're back! What hath God wrought!

He hath wrought not much!!

It's only for today. It's Sunday, I'm home, and The GF Trilogy is playing all weekend. What better temporary viewing companion than the BB whilst my daughter watches SpongeBob Squarepants in the other room!!!

Take care,
Apple

There are many plot details missing from Part II, I've always wondered why the mere presence of Frankie's brother swayed him into not testifying?

In a draft of the script, it was implied that Frankie had a mistress and child (or maybe just a child, I forget) back in Sicily, and it was hinted that it would not be good for them if he was a rat. Now, I'm not sure if the implication was that they'd kill them (as they don't kill "civilians"), but more likely that they'd be dishonored and disgraced, where if he did the "right" thing, then the Corleones would make sure they had money and were taken care of.

Even in the movie it's hinted that if he testifies, he's bringing ruin to his name and his family (for breaking Omerta and being a traitor; his family would be disgraced) - his brother was brought to the trial to illustrate it. If Frankie had testified, his brother would see the Pentangeli family name disgraced. That's why the sight of his brother was enough to make him recant the statement; he couldn't bear to do that to his family. It's also why he committed suicide at the end - to wash away the disgrace of nearly breaking the "Code" (the "like the Roman Empire" discussion)

Because, as dontomasso stated earlier in this thread:

"Pentangeli made an immunity deal in which he was not prosecuted for anything, and got to live under Federal protection outside of a prison in exchange for an affidavit implicating Michael in criminal activity, and he also promised to testify against Michael if necessary. This means he broke Omerta, and disgrace himself annd his family."

To have testified publicly in front of his brother no less would've caused even further disgrace. Frankie just couldn't bring himself to do it.

I used to think that Michael was threatening the life of Frankie's brother, and that's what compelled him to recant. But this is one of the times where a reason offered on the Gangster BB seemed to make more sense.

Potential family disgrace might be in the cards, but I think Mike was definitely threatening the brother's life.

I thought that too.