Even though justice eventually prevailed,imagine if that were to happen nowadays.

I think it's an exaggeration to say that "justice prevailed". Those ones should have been happy to have got off lightly. Seriously, do you think there was even one among them never involved with at least one murder? In my opinion, it would have been much better if they resisted arrest, giving the cops an excuse to gun them down. It's one thing to say they were "formally" clean, it's another to seriously call "justice" a case where some of the biggest scumbags in the country walked free. It's a good thing anyway the meeting was raided, who knows what they would have decided there had they been allowed to finish: any time organized crime's plans are somehow stopped (even temporarily), it's a good thing.
Really, using a case of mass arrest of crime bosses as an example of malfunctioning of the civil rights system doesn't make sense to me. It's possible lives have been saved by that raid, or at least death sentences that could have been emitted by the bosses during the meeting were held over temporary, since the mobsters had to be busy with their legal defense for a certain time after that.

"Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall"

You are seriously against 60 years of basic constitutional law and basic criminal law if you believe that government was within its limited powers to arrest a large assortment of people for merely associating at a conference. Whether they were ultimately murderers or terrible people is complete irrelevant to that legal analysis.

You fundamentally don't seem to agree with concept of the rule of law. And the rule of law is no way "abstract"- but utilitarian in preventing the abuses and tyranny of discretionary government. If that means some people that are ultimately guilty get off, so be it. It's a hell of alot better than your platonic bureaucrats that get discretionary power over people's life and death.

I stand corrected. After thinking about it,I agree that since the
attendees had records,and probably had some murderers in their number,that their basic Constitutional rights were null and void.

Since they might possibly have been planning to maybe consider murdering someone, somewhere, in the near future they certainly deserved to be gunned down for resisting arrest. The problem is in the lenient sentences we hand down to Mobsters.Instead of an obstruction of justice charge,the State Troopers should have just picked out the guys with records and shot them.

While we're at it,let's go a step further and bring in some psychics. That way they could actually tell us what possible crimes these guys might have discussed had they been left alone. We could then kill those guys too.

I believe that our Society would be much better off if the cops had the discretion to just kill people for the crime of barbecuing. I would go further and stake out boxing matches,restaurants,weddings,etc,since Mob guys with records see each other at these events as well,and probably discuss possibly considering criminal activity.We could then just wait outside and arrest them all as they come out. If we're lucky,maybe they'll resist,and the cops can kill them too.

How dare the cops let guys "walk free" from crimes they never committed. Next thing you know,we'll actually have to provide evidence to get convictions. I for one,don't want to live in a country where people that we don't like get the same legal rights as the rest of us.

Back in 1957 in was the mafia that had the power over people's life and death. The got off the hook in 99% of the cases. So why worrying about their "rights being hurt" if in ONE case not everything went as they planned? Don't forget, it was 1957, not today, you still had problems like racial segregation for example, yet you insist that the "rights" of MOB BOSSES was the priority n.1 even back then?

You need to read up more on Mafia in that time period. Where did you come up with them getting off for 99% of crimes?

They shoulda all just stayed on the property instead of speeding off.finish the bar b q n go home calmly

100 mafia members meeting = a criminal conspiracy

Just goes to show how far we've come with civil rights in the last 60 years.

20 of the Apalachin attendees were charged with obstruction of justice for refusing to explain why they were at Barboza's estate.

Does one have to explain themselves why they are at a residence of a friend? How that can be considered a crime, beats me. Only in America I suppose..

I think that if you take the 5th and refuse to answer on the grounds that your answer my incriminate you....the grand jury can offer you immunity. Then you are compelled to answer questions, and if you don't, then you can be tossed in jail for contempt of court. I believe this is what happened to Greg Anderson in the Barry Bonds case.

when 100 organized crime figures meet to talk it's usually a criminal conspiracy

when 100 organized crime figures meet to talk it's usually a criminal conspiracy