News

March 9, 2010

Patte’s worker in plea negotiations

Mark Fino gets delay in preliminary hearing related to illegal gambling allegations.

By Mark Guydish mguydish@timesleader.com
Education Reporter
Mark Guydish on Facebook   |   @TLMarkGuydish on Twitter

SCRANTON – Saying he is “presently in plea negotiations,” Patte’s Sports Bar employee Mark Fino filed paperwork Monday seeking – and winning – a delay in his preliminary hearing related to illegal gambling allegations at the popular bar/restaurant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Malachy Mannion signed similar orders for two others charged in the case, Patrick Patte Jr. and Christopher Marion.

All three were charged Feb. 10 with conspiracy to transmit wagering information through use of wire communications, and all three had preliminary hearings set for this Thursday. All three filed motions asking Mannion to continue those hearings to a future date.

But Marion and Patte, 71, gave terse reasons. Patte’s motion noted only that he “needs additional time,” while Marion said his attorney, Joseph O’Brien “is unavailable” Thursday.

Fino’s motion, by comparison, was loquacious.

“The parties are presently in plea negotiations and are attempting to resolve this matter without the need for a preliminary examination or indictment,” federal public defender Ingrid Cronin wrote. “It is respectfully submitted that the ends of justice will be served” by excluding Fino, 52, from federal “Speedy trial” rules that required the hearing within 30 days of the charges.

Mannion granted all three motions, moving Marion’s hearing to April 1 at 2 p.m. in Wilkes-Barre, and rescheduling hearings for Patte and Fino to April 9, both at 2 p.m. in Wilkes-Barre.

The criminal complaint detailing the allegations is sealed, but federal authorities filed civil action Friday seeking to seize Patte’s Sports Bar under forfeiture law. In that paperwork, prosecutors say Patte and others set up an Internet site dubbed www.willtobet.com that accepted wagers on sporting events. Bettors allegedly collected their winnings or paid their losses at Patte’s bar.

Legal experts have said the decision to file civil forfeiture action instead of criminal action increases the odds of success because the legal standard of proof is not as stringent. The way the law is set up, Patte may still lose the property even if he is acquitted of criminal charges.

Mark Guydish, a Times Leader staff writer, can be reached at 829-7161

Tweet	Follow @TLnews