Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07094/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Eddie Lee Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L D 

United States Court of Appea~ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

EDDIE LEE WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DEC 3 0 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7094 

(D.C. No. CR-91-006-01-S) 

(E. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and KELLY,** District 

Judge. 

Eddie Lee Williams appeals from convictions on a twenty-seven 

count indictment charging distribution of cocaine, using a 

telephone to facilitate the distribution of cocaine, conspiracy, 

use of a person under twenty-one years of age to distribute 

cocaine, and violations of the money laundering statute. 1 Mr. 

Williams argues that the trial court committed three errors which 

require reversal of his conviction: failure to make the requisite 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** . ' . The Honorable Patrick F. Kelly, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

1 A more detailed version of the relevant facts is set forth in 

the companion case of United States v. Johnnie Lee Pickens, No. 

91-7092 (10th Cir. , filed Jan. _ , 1993). 

Appellate Case: 91-7094 Document: 010110155945 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 1 
findings to allow admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements; 

failure to enforce a sequestration order under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 615 ; and prosecutorial misconduct. Further, Mr. Williams 

contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his 

conviction on the money laundering offense. We find no error in 

the proceedings b e low requiring reversal and therefore affirm. 

Mr. Williams' first argument involves the admission of coconspirator hearsay. 2 He does not identify the specific 

statements to which he is referring . This issue was fully 

considered in the companion case of United States v. Johnnie Leto 

Pickens, No. 91 - 7092 (10 th Cir., filed Jan._, 1993). We held 

there that the district court had improperly admitted 

coconspirator hearsay statements without making the findings 

required by Fed. R. Evid. 80l(d) (2) (E), but that the admission 

constituted harmless error. Given the overwhelming direct 

evidence of Mr. Williams' guilt, we conclude that the error was 

harmless in this case as well . 

Mr. Williams' second argument focuses on the district court ' s 

decision to permit a specific witness to testify. Throughout the 

trial , two agents, Agent Fathree and Agent Megli, were present in 

the courtroom. Both agents were l isted on the witness list. 

Agent Fathree testified as the first government witness and Agent 

2 We note the Government conceded at oral argument that Mr. 

Williams' conviction for conspiracy must be vacated because it is 

a lesser included offense of his continuing criminal enterprise 

conviction. See United States v. Stallings, 810 F .2d 973 , 975 

(1 0th Cir. 1987). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7094 Document: 010110155945 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 2 
Megli testified as the final government witness. Mr. Williams 

argues that Agent Megli should not have been allowed to testify 

because she was present in the courtroom in violation of the Rule 

615 s equestration order. He also contends that her presence 

allowed her to alter her testimony to supplement the testimony of 

a previous government witness. We review for abuse of discretion. 

Durtsche v. American Colloid Co., 958 F.2d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir. 

1992) (admission or exclusion of evidence committed to trial 

court's discretion). 

At the beginning of the trial, the trial court invoked Rule 

615 at the request of one of defendants' lawyers. Rule 615 

requires the exclusion of all witnesses from the courtroom so that 

they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. The Rule does 

not require exclusion of "an officer or employee of a party which 

is not a natural person designated as its representative by its 

attorney. " Fed. R. Evid. 615(2). Therefore , the 

government was permitted to keep a representative in the courtroom 

and at counsel table throughout the trial. 

It is unclear from the record which of the two agents the 

government considered its representative. Assuming Agent Megli 

was the representative, she was allowed to remain in the courtroom 

throughout the proceedings. Agent Fathree was the first witness 

and was therefore permitted to remain after testifying . Although 

a different order of witnesses might have caused f ewer problems, 

"it is discretionary with the trial judge as to whether he will 

require an excused witness . .. to testify early in the course of 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 91-7094 Document: 010110155945 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 3 
the trial." United States v. Alvarado, 647 F.2d 537, 540 (5th 

Cir. 1981) (footnote omitted). We hold that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in failing to sequester Agent Megli or in 

allowing her to testify. 

Mr. Williams next argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion in failing to grant a mistrial based upon prosecutorial 

misconduct. According to Mr. Williams, this misconduct arose from 

an attempt by the prosecutor to solicit testimony concerning 

previously excluded evidence. Assuming the introduction of the 

testimony was in error, such error was rendered harmless by the 

trial court's instruction to disregard the evidence. "An error in 

admission of evidence may generally be cured by withdrawing the 

evidence and instructing the jury to disregard it . ... " 

United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1401 (10th Cir. 1990). 

In determining if the admission is harmless, "we should consider 

the matter in the context of all the evidence properly before the 

jury." Id. Upon review of the record , we believe the admission 

of the questioned testimony was harmless in light of the 

instruction, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to 

grant a mistrial. 

Finally, Mr. Williams argues that there is insufficient 

evidence to convict him under 18 U.S . C. § 1956(a) (1). He focuses 

on subsection (a) (1) (B) (i) and argues there is no proof of intent 

to conceal the source of the funds. 3 However, Mr. Williams was 

3 The statute, in relevant part, reads as follows: 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-7094 Document: 010110155945 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 4 
charged under two separate subsections of the statute: 

(a ) (1 ) (B) (i ) and (a ) (1 ) (A) (i ) . Subsection (A) (i) does not require 

any showing of an intent to conceal. In Griffin v. United States, 

112 S. Ct . 466 (1991) , the Supreme Cour t held that the factual 

insufficiency of one ground of a multi-count charge "does no t 

provide an independent basis for reversing an otherwise valid 

conviction" from a general verdict . Id. at 474. Mr. Williams 

d oes not raise the suffic iency of the evidence under subsection 

(A) (i) and we therefore do not consider it. We presume the 

sufficiency of the evidence for subsection (A) (i) and affirm the 

conviction on the money laundering violations. 

(a ) (1 ) Whoever, knowing that the property involved 

in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of 

some f o rm o f unlawful activity, conducts or attempts t o 

conduct such a financial transaction which in fact 

involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity--

(A) (i ) with the intent to promote the carrying on 

of specified unlawful activity; or 

(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in 

whole or in part- -

(i ) to conceal or disguise the nature, the 

location, the s ource , the ownership, or the 

control of the proceeds of specified unlawful 

activity; . ... 

- 5-

Appellate Case: 91-7094 Document: 010110155945 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 5 
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in all 

respects except that Mr. Williams' conviction for conspiracy must 

be vacated. 

- 6 -

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7094 Document: 010110155945 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 6