Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03146/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francis Ray Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

F L · D 

United Stat!j U>Urc of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

APR 12 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3146 

v. 

FRANCIS RAY COLLINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-30004-01) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK, District 

Judge.** 

Defendant Francis Ray Collins appeals his conviction for 

possession of contraband in the United States Penitentiary at 

*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. 

**Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, United States District Judge for the 

District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 1 
Leavenworth, Kansas, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 179l(a)(2), and 

resisting an officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. We affirm. 

I. 

On November 8, 1988, Mr. Collins was in the laundry room of 

the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, with his cell 

mate, Jeffrey Kinney. Correctional Officer Drinkard entered this 

area and noticed Mr. Collins was wearing a green fatigue jacket 

which appeared to have a bulge. When Officer Drinkard started to 

perform a pat search on Mr. Collins, Mr. Collins refused and 

attempted to run past the officer. Officer Drinkard grabbed hold 

of Mr. Collins and began to walk him down to an area where other 

officers could provide assistance. They struggled on a stairway; 

Mr. Collins released himself from Officer Drinkard's grasp, and 

then ran away. As he was running, Mr. Collins allegedly removed 

his jacket and threw it onto the floor. Thereafter, a pipe bomb 

was found in the jacket. 

At trial, Officers Drinkard, Borst, and Cunning testified 

they saw Mr. Collins throw the jacket on the floor. That 

testimony was refuted by the testimony of Mr. Kinney, who was 

present in the laundry room and claimed Mr. Collins was not 

wearing a jacket, nor did he have one in his possession. In 

addition, Louis Bourgoieus, another inmate, testified he saw Mr. 

Collins come down the stairs and that he wasn't wearing a jacket. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 2 
II. 

Mr. Collins appeals the denial of several motions for copies 

of the Special Investigative Services (SIS) report prepared by 

officers at the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth and the 

excision of all but two paragraphs of that report following 

Lieutenant Gallegos' testimony on direct examination. Before 

trial, the district court denied Mr. Collins' discovery motion for 

access to the SIS report. When Mr. Collins sought to obtain this 

material by way of subpoena for use at trial, the court sustained 

the government's motion to quash. When Mr. Collins requested the 

SIS report following Lieutenant Gallegos' testimony on direct 

examination, the government gave the report to the court for in 

camera inspection, and the court made two paragraphs available to 

Mr. Collins. 

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court 

held that the Fifth Amendment due process clause requires the 

prosecution to provide evidence favorable to an accused which is 

material to guilt or punishment. However, the government is not 

required to make files available to the defendant for an openended "fishing expedition" for possible Brady material. United 

States v. Davis, 752 F.2d 963, 976 (5th Cir. 1985); United 

States v. Muse, 708 F.2d 513, 517 (10th Cir. 1983). In this 

appeal, Mr. Collins argues the SIS report is Brady material which 

the prosecution is required to provide to the defense. 

"In order to establish a Brady violation, a defendant must 

prove: (a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the 

defense, (b) the evidence's favorable character for the defense, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 3 
and (c) the materiality of the evidence." United States v. 

Bonnett, 877 F.2d 1450, 1459 (10th Cir. 1989). In United 

States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the Court enunciated the 

standard of materiality, stating: 

The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable 

probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the 

defense, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. A "reasonable probability" is a probability 

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 

473 U.S. at 682. See also Bonnett, 877 F.2d at 1459-60. 

In this case, the SIS report was suppressed by the government 

after several requests by the defense. However, Mr. Collins 

failed to show that the SIS report contained material exculpatory 

evidence. Mr. Collins alleges the report might contain 

information to support his theory of defense, that someone else 

was in possession of the jacket which contained the pipe bomb, and 

he was being prosecuted because he would not identify that person. 

However, Mr. Collins never articulated any specific evidence that 

he believes is contained in the SIS report that would be 

exculpatory or could be used to impeach a witness. 

In addition, Mr. Collins did not seek to have the SIS report 

included in the record for review by this court. The district 

court examined the report in camera and determined that it did not 

contain exculpatory information relevant to the guilt or innocence 

of Mr. Collins. Further, the court allowed the defense access to 

those parts of the report that dealt with the subject matter of 

Lieutenant Gallegos' testimony when he testified in rebuttal at 

trial. Because we are unable to conduct our own review, and 

because Mr. Collins has not pointed to any specific material 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 4 
evidence contained in the reports, we must conclude the trial 

court correctly ruled the government was not obligated to disclose 

the SIS report. 

III. 

Mr. Collins appeals the trial court's exclusion of portions 

of his testimony as hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802 excludes hearsay 

evidence, statements other than those made by the declarant while 

testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove 

the truth of the matter asserted. The district court did not 

allow Mr. Collins to testify regarding statements allegedly made 

to him by personnel of the United States Penitentiary at 

Leavenworth. He alleges these statements were to the effect that 

the prison personnel knew the bomb did not belong to 

and, if he would tell them whose it was, he 

prosecuted. 

Mr. Collins 

would not be 

We reject Mr. Collins' contention that this evidence was not 

offered for the truth of the matter asserted and affirm the 

district court's exclusion as hearsay. By attempting to convince 

the jury that the prison administration believed someone else 

possessed the pipe bomb other than Mr. Collins, the defense 

implicitly offered the statement to show that Mr. Collins did not 

possess the pipe bomb. Therefore, the statements were offered for 

the truth of the matter asserted and were properly excluded as 

hearsay. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 5 
IV. 

Mr. Collins claims the court erred in allowing the prosecutor 

to cross-examine defense witnesses about their prior criminal 

records. At trial, Mr. Collins called two inmate witnesses who 

claimed to be eyewitnesses to the events surrounding the alleged 

possession of the pipe bomb. On cross-examination, these 

witnesses testified about criminal convictions for armed robbery, 

attempted murder, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and bank 

robbery. Mr. Collins objected to examination of prior convictions 

in a pretrial motion in limine and a renewed motion at trial. The 

district court denied both motions. 

Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(l) provides 

conviction of felonies may be admitted only 

finds that its probative value on the 

that evidence of the 

if the trial court 

issue of credibility 

outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. In United 

States v. Rosales, 680 F.2d 1304 (10th Cir. 1981), we held that 

where the trial court weighs probity and prejudice in allowing the 

government to cross-examine inmate-witnesses about their prior 

criminal convictions, and ultimately decides in favor of such 

cross-examination, there is no abuse of discretion. Id. at 1306-

07. See United States v. Owens, 723 F.2d 64, 65 (10th Cir. 1983). 

The district court here performed that weighing process; 

therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by admitting the prior 

criminal records. As in Rosales, the testimony of the inmate 

witnesses directly contradicted that of the guards and, therefore, 

"evidence concerning credibility was highly pertinent to the 

case.'' Rosales, 680 F.2d at 1306. The fact that inmate witnesses 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 6 
were serving substantial prison terms suggests a strong motivation 

to testify falsely in a dispute with prison guards. Id. at 1307. 

Therefore, prior convictions have increased probative weight. In 

addition, we have noted that the fact of a lengthy prison sentence 

diminishes the otherwise likely prejudice of admission of the 

prior convictions since knowledge of these convictions adds little 

to what the trier of fact already knows about the witness's 

incarceration in the federal institution. Id. at 1307. Further, 

when the criminal record relates to the conviction which accounts 

for the present incarceration, it is rarely an abuse of discretion 

to admit it. Owens, 723 F.2d at 65. Thus, we hold the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the 

convictions. 

v. 

Mr. Collins claims the evidence adduced at trial did not 

support the jury's verdict. "Our standard 

sufficiency of evidence on criminal convictions 

evidence -- both direct and circumstantial, 

for reviewing the 

is whether the 

together with the 

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom -- is sufficient if, 

when taken in the light most favorable to the government, a 

reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt." United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 673 

(10th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Brandon, 847 F.2d 625, 

630 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 109 S. Ct. 510 

(1988)). 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 7 
In this case, the government was required to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Mr. Collins made, possessed, or obtained, or 

attempted to make or obtain, a prohibited object which includes 

destructive devices such as a pipe bomb. 18 U.S.C. § 179l(a)(2). 1 

After a review of the record, we find sufficient evidence that the 

government met its burden to support the jury's verdict of guilty. 

The government presented three eyewitnesses who specifically 

observed Mr. Collins running from Officer Drinkard and removing a 

jacket in which was discovered a pipe bomb. 

Mr. Collins maintains this testimony was contradicted by the 

testimony of Mr. Kinney, Mr. Bourgoieus, and Mr. Collins himself. 

Claiming that Officer Drinkard had previous ill feelings toward 

him and thus a motive to lie, Mr. Collins claims Officer 

Drinkard's testimony is inconsistent with Officer Borst's 

testimony that Mr. Collins threw down the jacket before Officer 

Drinkard entered the cell house. Although the testimony of the 

prison guards contradicted that of the inmates, this inconsistency 

does not necessarily indicate insufficient evidence to support a 

verdict of guilty. Instead, these contradictions required 

credibility determinations which the jury evidently resolved in 

favor of the prison guards. Therefore, we conclude there was 

sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a 

1 In addition, under 18 U.S.C. § 111, the government had to show 

that Mr. Collins forcibly resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, 

and interfered with a federal law enforcement officer, that such 

conduct occurred while the officer was engaged in performance of 

his or her duties, and that Mr. Collins did so willfully. See 

Potter v. United States, 691 F.2d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 1982). Mr. 

Collins was convicted of this charge, but he does not make any 

arguments challenging sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

verdict of guilty on this count. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 8 
reasonable doubt that Mr. Collins was in possession of the pipe 

bomb. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-3146 Document: 01019971253 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 9