Source: https://openjurist.org/524/f2d/167
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:35:13+00:00

Document:
Eric Sylvester SMITH, Appellant (two cases).
Paul James COATES, Jr., Appellant.
Gary A. Reese, Charlottesville, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in Nos. 73-2523 and 73-2087.
Charles Bruce Baird, Vienna, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in No. 73-2086.
C. Jeffers Schmidt, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Andrew W. Wood, Richmond Va. (Court-appointed counsel) and Wood and Street on brief), for appellant in No. 73-2090.
Dexter S. Odin, Fairfax, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in No. 73-2091.
Donald S. Lilly, Fairfax, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), on brief for appellant in No. 73-2088.
Barry R. Poretz, Alexandria, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), on brief for appellant in No. 73-2089.
J. Frederick Sinclair, Asst. U. S. Atty. (David H. Hopkins, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee in Nos. 73-2523, 73-2086-73-2091.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
The appellants appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit bank robbery1 and for bank robbery.2 We find the appeal on the part of all appellants without merit and affirm.
On the morning of February 23, 1973 a branch of the Alexandria National Bank was robbed at gunpoint. Six persons four males and two females staged a carefully planned and executed robbery. One of the men and one of the women entered the bank and approached the teller counter where teller Mary Guerth was waiting on a bank customer. The male robber, brandishing a pistol, pushed aside the customer, ordered Guerth and the bank's other occupants not to move, and backed toward the bank entrance. Two other men, pulling ski-masks over their faces, entered the bank. One of them leaped over the teller counter and forced teller Guerth to the floor. The second proceeded to the manager's area demanding access to the vault. The woman, following the example of the masked robber, vaulted the teller counter and ordered teller Menette LaFew to the floor. As these three rifled cash from the teller drawers and vault, the fourth robber maintained his vigil at the bank entrance, barking instructions to bank employees and customers.
Meanwhile, outside the bank, a woman driver of a black-over-gold, 1970-model Chrysler, abandoned her car, thus blocking access to the bank's drive-in window, and patrolled the area outside the bank to prevent any interruption of her accomplices by the arrival of new customers. She was joined in this endeavor by a sixth robber, a man dressed in a security guard uniform and carrying a shotgun, who had emerged from a late model, blue Pontiac parked across the street from the bank. One customer, arriving while the robbery was in progress, was forced by the sixth robber to lie prone in the back seat of his vehicle.
After taking money from the tellers' cages and the vault, the four "inside men" joined the two accomplices outside the bank and, together, rushed across the parking lot to the blue Pontiac parked opposite the bank. Bridget Irby, a customer in the bank at the time, observed their escape and twice shouted the license number of the getaway car as it sped away.
After the robbery, an Alexandria police officer, on routine patrol, overheard the police broadcast of the robbery and a description of the getaway car and its license number. Shortly thereafter he spied the getaway car in an alley near appellant Peterson's residence. His investigation revealed that the vehicle had been stolen in the District of Columbia. The owner's license tags were visible on the floor in the rear of the car. The tags on the vehicle, matching the license number of the getaway car, belonged to the appellant Linda Smith. Additional law enforcement officers were immediately summoned to the scene and a house-to-house inquiry of the neighborhood begun. One of the houses visited was the residence of Annie Pearl Peterson, mother of appellant Stanley Peterson. When the officers knocked at the Peterson door, Nina Butler responded and admitted them. As the officers entered they encountered Linda Smith in the living room. Although both Butler and Smith admitted not knowing whose house they were in, both claimed to be alone and that "they were visiting with some other friends." The officers asked if it was all right for them to "look around" and upon Butler's consent, they proceeded to do so. One of the officers observed Paul Coates and Eric Smith in an upstairs bedroom lying on a bed fully clothed. After summoning the other police and FBI agents in the neighborhood, Coates and Smith were brought downstairs. All four occupants of the house were separately interviewed. During these interviews, several members of the Peterson family who lived nearby came to the house. After determining that the house belonged to Mrs. Peterson, the police requested of Mrs. Peterson's daughter consent for a search of the premises. The daughter informed the police that Mrs. Peterson was the only person with authority to consent to the search and that she had been summoned and would arrive momentarily. When Mrs. Peterson arrived, she was unable to identify any of the persons the police had found occupying her home. Mrs. Peterson was advised of her right to withhold consent to search but, according to the officers, she was "pleased to allow us to search * * *, she worked for the Government, she did not know what these people were doing here, she was glad to cooperate." She did request that the officers not search her own room because, as she said, "(I)t has a padlock on it and nobody has been in there." The officers readily agreed. Mrs. Peterson then signed a written consent form authorizing a search of the remainder of the house. A search of the bedroom where Coates and Smith were found revealed a loaded .12 gauge Savage shotgun, later identified at trial as being similar to the one used by the robber wearing the security guard uniform; a large, wide-brimmed gray hat, identified as being similar to the hat worn by the robber who stood by the bank entrance; and a twenty dollar bill of the bank's "bait money." In several garbage pails located in the back yard of the premises, the police recovered a wig similar to the one worn by the woman inside the bank, several striped pillow cases, Alexandria National Bank money bags, two pairs of gloves, $163.12 in change wrapped in the bank's coin wrappers, and a security guard uniform similar to the one worn by the robber patrolling the parking area.
It is undisputed that the two automobiles used in the robbery had been stolen shortly before the robbery in the District of Columbia. The dark blue Pontiac used as the getaway car belonged to Richard Johnson, who positively identified Lester Irby as one of the two thieves accosting him and stealing his car. The Chrysler, abandoned at the bank, had been stolen the night before the robbery from the Reverend Randery J. Dockery. Dockery identified Coates and Linda Smith as the two who had stolen his car and wallet. His identifications were bolstered by Butler's testimony that Smith and Coates had left Eric Smith's apartment after the discussion of the diagram, and returned a short time later displaying a wallet and boasting that they had stolen it and a car from "some reverend." Dockery also identified the red coat worn by Linda Smith that evening.
Eye witnesses to the bank robbery made several positive identifications of the participants. Two witnesses identified Eric Smith as the man who first entered the bank and stood at the bank entrance during the robbery. Janet Awkard was identified as his female companion. Frazier was identified by the customer forced into the back seat of his car as the man carrying the shotgun and wearing the security guard uniform. Although not directly identified, Linda Smith's general description matched that of the woman driving the gold Chrysler.
On the basis of this record, the District Court submitted the cause as against all the defendants to the jury, which in turn returned a verdict of guilty as to all. The defendants have appealed from their convictions.
We find no merit in the appellants' initial contentions that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. The evidence in the record, as already detailed, amply sustains the jury's findings that each appellant was guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, supra (315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457); United States v. Sherman, supra (421 F.2d 198).
Nor do we find merit in Peterson's contention that the Government's failure to produce a "statement" by witness Jeffrey Heyer requires us to purge Heyer's testimony and to set aside the conviction. Prior to trial and pursuant to Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P., Peterson's counsel moved for the discovery and inspection of "all statements, confessions or admissions made by the defendant, written or otherwise recorded, or oral statements subsequently reduced to writing." Counsel was accordingly provided complete access to the Government's file. There was no written statement by Heyer in the file and it is undisputed that the Government Attorney was neither in possession of nor aware of the existence of any such "statement" and so represented to the Court prior to trial. After Heyer testified at trial, examination of the investigating FBI agent revealed that a "302" FBI memorandum had been prepared by the agent as a "result of an interview" with Heyer.10 It is this FBI memorandum that Peterson now claims, for the first time, to have been a statement subject to production under the provisions of the Jencks Act,18 U.S.C. § 3500. But, on the record before us, we would be constrained to view the memorandum as merely the agent's personal summary of the interview to serve to refresh his memory in later preparing a written report of the investigation.11 Manifestly, nothing in the Act compels the production of FBI memoranda prepared "As a result and after the interview " of the witness,12 as was the case here.
In any event, the trial court was never afforded a clear and suitable request to rule on the applicability of the Jencks Act to the memorandum. Peterson's counsel knew in advance the substance of Heyer's testimony and the Government made an accurate proffer of the testimony prior to Heyer's examination at trial. Even after the FBI agent's disclosure of the existence of the memorandum immediately following Heyer's testimony, defense counsel failed to demand its production or to request the trial court to inspect it. Nor did counsel move to strike Heyer's testimony. Peterson's motion for a new trial made no mention of the nonproduction of the report as a basis for error in the trial. Although Peterson's counsel, it is true, did make a broad pretrial discovery motion arguably encompassing Jencks Act material, "a Jencks Act request is wholly inappropriate in a pretrial motion for discovery," and we think defense counsel, in order to invoke the benefits of the Act, was obligated at the very least to alert the trial judge During the course of the trial to his request by demanding the production and inspection of the memorandum when its existence became known and not "simply by means of some multi-pronged pre-trial motion."13 Under these circumstances, we conclude that Peterson's counsel is foreclosed from raising on appeal any issue relating to the production of the FBI memorandum.
Linda Smith argues that the Court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial based on a passing remark between two women jurors overheard in the lady's room after jury deliberations had commenced. One juror allegedly made a remark to the effect that, "this reminds me of the Angela Davis trial," adding, "I hope that I have not frightened you by saying that." When the matter was called to the Court's attention, the District Judge recalled the jury, identified the two jurors involved and questioned them to determine if the remark might adversely affect their deliberations. After thus exploring any potential source of prejudice, the Court denied Smith's motion for a mistrial, concluding that the two jurors had not been "deliberating" apart from the other jurors and that the remark had created no fear or apprehension on the part of either juror that might affect their verdict. We find no abuse in the exercise of the trial court's discretion, either in the manner in which the examination was conducted or in the denial of the motion, and, accordingly, no merit in Smith's argument. Wiltsey v. United States (4th Cir. 1955) 222 F.2d 600, 601; Tillman v. United States (5th Cir. 1969) 406 F.2d 930, Cert. denied 395 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 2143, 23 L.Ed.2d 742 (1969).
Lester Irby contends that he was denied effective representation of counsel at trial because his attorney, relying on Government representations that the case against him might be dismissed if witness Nina Butler were not located, delayed trial preparations until shortly before trial when the witness was found. Although counsel, appointed approximately seven weeks prior to trial, was afforded more than a reasonable opportunity to prepare Irby's defense, we are concerned here with the effect rather than the fault of the delay. Coles v. Peyton (4th Cir. 1968) 389 F.2d 224, 226, Cert. denied393 U.S. 849, 89 S.Ct. 80, 21 L.Ed.2d 120 (1968). Notwithstanding counsel's delay, we are convinced that Irby was adequately represented at trial. Counsel had been provided complete access to the Government's file. He was familiar with the Government's case against Irby, the substance of each witness's proposed testimony, and, at trial, thoroughly cross-examined them. He had conferred sufficiently with Irby to elicit from him matters essential to establishing an alibi defense which was, although ultimately discounted by the jury, fully and adequately presented at trial. At the beginning of the trial, counsel suggested to the Court that he had been forced to prepare for trial in a too-limited amount of time. The District Judge immediately offered Irby a continuance if counsel were unprepared to proceed but counsel, after conferring with Irby, declined the offer. Indeed, no argument is advanced that, if the offer of a continuance had been accepted or extended preparation time provided, trial counsel would or could have pursued a different trial strategy or defense. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded that, despite counsel's delay in beginning his trial preparations, Irby was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
The primary attack by the defendants in this appeal relates to the validity of the police search of the Peterson premises. Stanley Peterson and his codefendants Linda Smith, Eric Smith and Paul Coates joined in a pretrial motion to suppress All of the physical evidence found as a result of that search. They made no contention that Mrs. Peterson lacked the requisite authority to consent to the search but, rather, argued that her consent, given after the police officers had arrived at her home, was involuntary. Following an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to Rule 41(e), in which Peterson's codefendants failed to establish the legitimacy of their presence on the Peterson premises,16 the District Court found that Mrs. Peterson's consent had been freely and voluntarily given. On its own motion, however, the District Court concluded that the bedroom in which some of the contested items had been discovered was "set apart" for the use of defendant Peterson and that his mother was without authority to consent to a search of such room as against the rights of her son. It accordingly ruled that the evidence taken in the search of the bedroom was inadmissible against Stanley Peterson.
On appeal the appellants redouble their efforts in an attempt to persuade us that the District Court erred in finding that Mrs. Peterson's consent was freely and voluntarily given. This, however, is a factual question, to be determined by the trier of fact in light of the "totality of all the surrounding circumstances" and is binding on us unless clearly erroneous. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854. Manifestly, the mere presence of police officers in the Peterson home, absent any indication of coercive words or acts on their part, is insufficient to raise an inference that Mrs. Peterson's consent was an unwitting and unwilling submission to police authority. United States v. Vickers (4th Cir. 1967) 387 F.2d 703, 706-7; United States v. Savage (5th Cir. 1972) 459 F.2d 60, 61, Vacated on other grounds (5th Cir. 1973), 483 F.2d 67; United States v. Stone (7th Cir. 1972) 471 F.2d 170, 173, Cert. denied, 411 U.S. 931, 93 S.Ct. 1898, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973). She found her home occupied, without explanation, by four strangers suspected of a nearby bank robbery. Despite the presence of the officers, she was in the familiar surroundings of her own home and in the company of her own family. She was specifically informed of her right to withhold her consent before signing the proffered consent form, and, in fact, partially exercised that right by in effect refusing to permit a search of her own bedroom. Not only was the District Court's finding not clearly erroneous, it was supported by the overwhelming evidence in the case.
Peterson's codefendants alternatively press the claim that they are entitled to assert the same right of privileged privacy as Stanley Peterson was held by the District Court to have in connection with the search of the bedroom used by him and his two brothers in the mother's home and that Mrs. Peterson's consent to the search of that room was no more valid as against them than as against her son. This claim, however, was not advanced until trial and only after the items discovered as a result of the search had been received in evidence. These defendants would justify their delay in asserting the claim because, as they argue, the claim did not have a basis in the record until Stanley Peterson's role in the robbery had been developed by a Government witness and until it was testified that Peterson had given them permission to be in his mother's house. However, they knew from the outset, and particularly at the pretrial suppression hearing, that Stanley Peterson had given them permission to be in the Peterson residence. They could have testified at the suppression hearing to the circumstances under which they were present in the Peterson home without in any way compromising their rights to remain silent at trial and without any fear that their testimony would be used against them. Simmons v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. at 389-90, 88 S.Ct. 967. Under these circumstances, we think it was their obligation under Rule 41(e) to make their derivative claim of constitutional privacy before trial. Having been afforded a full opportunity At their own request to present any and all grounds which might have arguably justified the suppression of the questioned evidence, the District Court (had it chosen to do so) would have been acting well within its discretion in refusing to entertain their belated claims during the course of the trial. Cf. United States v. Cobb (4th Cir. 1970) 432 F.2d 716, 718, n. 2; United States v. Blythe (4th Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 96; United States v. Mauro (2d Cir. 1974) 507 F.2d 802, 807, Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 991, 95 S.Ct. 1426, 43 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975).
Even apart from the untimeliness of their claim, we are not persuaded on the record before us that Peterson, much less the codefendants, was entitled to the benefit of the trial court's suppression ruling. Although the mother testified at the suppression hearing that one of the two bedrooms in the house the one in which the questioned items were discovered was used by her three sons, this testimony was the full extent of the testimony on the relationship of Stanley Peterson to the room searched.17 The motion to suppress was based solely on the alleged involuntariness of the consent given and not on any absence of authority to consent. For that matter, neither the mother nor appellant Peterson or his counsel ever contended that the mother had relinquished her control of the room or her ability to designate what use, if any, could be made of that room by Peterson. Such a record hardly justifies a finding of a want of authority in the mother to consent to a search of the bedroom as against her son.
In reaching its conclusion, the District Court relied on our decision in Reeves v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary (4th Cir. 1965) 346 F.2d 915. But Reeves established no strict rule that a mother may not under any circumstances consent to a search of a room in the family home occupied by her child, particularly when shared, as here, by other children in the family. Such determinations should be approached with great circumspection and made only upon a clearly defined record. Indeed, the facts of Reeves were quite different from those in this appeal. In Reeves, the home searched was that of a sister. Permission to search was given by the mother, who together with her son, occupied rooms in the sister's home merely "as a tenant or guest." The room searched was "regularly and exclusively occupied by * * * (the son);" it had been " 'set aside exclusively for * * * (his) use, * * *.' "18 In this case, however, the home searched was that of the mother. She maintained it as a family home. She made it available to all her children living at home with her, including Stanley Peterson. All the children recognized it as belonging to the mother and as being under her "control." That was the basis given by the daughter who, in refusing to give her consent, told the police that Only her mother had the authority to consent to a search.
Manifestly, if the authority to consent to a search against the rights of her son were valid, there could be no basis for the argument of the codefendants that they were entitled to share in the suppression of the fruits of that search.
In any event, even if Mrs. Peterson were without authority to permit the search of the bedroom directed against the codefendants and the search was unconstitutional, we are convinced that the introduction of the seized items the hat, shotgun and bait bill was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; Young v. State of Maryland (4th Cir. 1972) 455 F.2d 679, 680, Cert. denied, 407 U.S. 915, 92 S.Ct. 2450, 32 L.Ed.2d 691 (1972); United States v. Simuel (4th Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 687, 689, Cert. denied, 404 U.S. 836, 92 S.Ct. 122, 30 L.Ed.2d 68 (1971). Although the hat, shotgun and bait bill seized as a result of that search arguably connected the codefendants to the crime, each of the defendants attempting to exclude the questioned articles was inextricably linked to his participation in the bank robbery by other, overwhelming evidence properly admitted at trial.24 United States v. Pravato (2d Cir. 1974) 505 F.2d 703, 704.
Eric Smith asserts that under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 43, his absence at the "commencement"29 of his trial left the District Court powerless to proceed against him. He makes no contention that his absence was involuntary, nor is he in a position to do so. He knew of his right to be present at trial, and was required to be there as a condition of his bond. See Stack v. Boyle (1951) 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3. He was fully advised of the date, time and place of trial.30 He offered no explanation for his absence at trial either at the time of sentencing before the District Judge or in his argument before us. Four times on the day prior to trial, Smith's counsel advised him of the importance of appearing in court the following day and even arranged to meet Smith an hour before trial to transport him to the court room. Despite the counsel's warnings and precautions to insure Smith's presence, Smith appeared neither at the appointed place nor at the court house. Neither the Court's nor his counsel's efforts to locate him bore fruit. Relying on United States v. Tortora,31 the District Court elected to proceed with the trial in his absence. Smith remained at large until his arrest and sentencing several months subsequent to the completion of the trial. Thus Smith's sole claim is that Rule 43 establishes his presence at the commencement of the trial as an indispensable prerequisite to the proceedings. We disagree.
"The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules. In prosecutions for offenses not punishable by death, the defendant's voluntary absence after the trial has been commenced in his presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to and including the return of the verdict. * * *."
Were we concerned only with a literal reading of the Rule, no doubt its language, as well as the language of the Advisory Committee's notes,32 would lend some support to Smith's argument. Since, however, the rule is but a "restatement of existing law,"33 the language upon which Smith relies must be construed in light of the prior law upon which the rule was founded and the "evolving meanings and purposes of the common law (right to presence)." United States v. Gregorio (4th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 1253, 1257, Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974).
Rule 43 represents no more than a "crystallization" of two earlier Supreme Court decisions applying the common law right of presence in federal criminal trials: Lewis v. United States, supra, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, and Diaz v. United States (1912) 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500.34 While Lewis declares the general proposition incorporated in the first sentence of the rule, that "after indictment found, nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner," (146 U.S. at 372, 13 S.Ct. at 137), Diaz provided almost verbatim the exception embodied in the second sentence of Rule 43.35 It should be clear, however, that no "talismanic properties" attach to the point at which the trial begins. Government of Virgin Islands v. Brown (3d Cir. 1975) 507 F.2d 186, 189. In speaking of a defendant's voluntary absence "after the trial has begun," the Diaz Court was referring merely to the factual context in which that particular defendant's voluntary waiver occurred I. e., after the commencement of his trial. Nothing in Diaz should be interpreted as precluding a court from continuing with a trial if the defendant voluntarily waives his presence before the trial commences. And this is so because the effect of the Philippine laws called into question in Diaz laws which the Court stated were the "substantial equivalent" of the Lewis Sixth Amendment right to be present at one's own trial as "recognized and understood in this country" made a defendant's presence " * * * indispensable at the arraignment, at the time the plea is taken, if it be one of guilt, and when judgment is pronounced, And to entitle him to be present at all other stages of the proceedings, but not to make his presence thereat indispensable."36 We therefore view as consistent with Lewis and Diaz an interpretation of Rule 43 permitting a defendant's voluntary absence at the commencement of his trial to act as a waiver of his rights to be present.
In so interpreting Rule 43, we join with two Circuits which have already confronted the same issue, and, in our opinion, reached the correct result: Government of Virgin Islands v. Brown (3d Cir. 1975) 507 F.2d 186, and United States v. Tortora (2d Cir. 1972) 464 F.2d 1202.42 Normally it is preferable for a defendant to be present at his trial, but we recognize, as did Judge Lumbard in Tortora, that our holding does not establish "a general rule that, in every case in which the defendant is voluntarily absent at the empanelment of the jury * * * , the trial judge should proceed with the trial." Indeed, not every case involving a defendant's voluntary absence at the commencement of the trial is a proper one in which to proceed to trial In absentia. See, e. g., Campbell v. United States (D.C.App.1972) 295 A.2d 498.43 Instead, each case turns upon "a complex of issues," including "the likelihood that the trial could soon take place with the defendant present; the difficulty of rescheduling, particularly in multiple-defendant trials; the burden on the Government in having to undertake two trials, again particularly in multiple-defendant trials where the evidence against the defendants is often overlapping and more than one trial might keep the Government's witnesses in substantial jeopardy."44 Thus the decision whether to proceed to trial is vested in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Within the circumstances of this case, we are convinced that the District Judge did not abuse his discretion in electing to proceed with the trial in Smith's absence.
A similar set of extraordinary factors as those found in Tortora are present here. Smith was jointly indicted with five other defendants, each of whom was present and prepared for trial. After conferring with Smith's counsel, it became apparent to the trial judge that Smith had no intention of appearing and that he had fled to escape prosecution, forfeiting his $25,000 bond. The likelihood of his speedy return was remote. Over twenty government witnesses had been assembled, most of whom were to give crucial identification testimony. A lengthy delay occasioned by a continuance would surely have prejudiced the Government's case against all the defendants. Although no threats had been made against the witnesses as in Tortora, Nina Butler, the Government's chief witness and potential accomplice in the crime, had already proved recalcitrant. At the earlier suppression hearing, she had failed to respond to a subpoena to testify and had eluded the police until shortly before the trial date. Delay would have provided her with an additional opportunity to abscond. Thus the burden on the Government in having to undertake two trials involving the same witnesses and proof, or alternatively, the substantial risk that delay might prejudice the Government's entire case if a continuance were granted, clearly outweighed the interests of the voluntarily absent defendant.
We have thoroughly considered the appellants' other claims of error and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction of all the appellants.
The most damaging evidence of Peterson's involvement came from the testimony of Jeffrey Heyer, Peterson's former cellmate. Heyer testified that Peterson had boasted that $9,000 (the amount unrecovered from the robbery) was still safely hidden inside the house and that he would "walk at the preliminary" because he had arranged to be seen in various parts of town at the time of the robbery. According to Heyer, Peterson had also expressed dissatisfaction that some of his codefendants had entered through the front door of his home, rather than through the back door as originally planned.
" * * * Form FD 302 interview reports * * * (do) not become 'statements' subject to production under the Act until * * * (the witness has) examined their content and confirmed that they * * * (are) accurate."
There is no indication in the record that Heyer signed or otherwise adopted or approved the report.
After the robbery, Odin was first shown a spread of photographs from which he selected Frazier, indicating that he was "50 per cent" certain that the man in the photograph was the bank robber wearing the security guard uniform. A second group of photographs, including a photo of Frazier was again exhibited to Odin. He repeated his identification of Frazier, this time stating that he was "70 per cent" certain. Provided at trial with his first opportunity to observe Frazier in person, Odin, without hesitation, identified Frazier from among the persons in the court room as the robber. Odin explained that any difficulty he may have experienced in making his photographic identifications resulted from the poor quality of the photographs rather than any uncertainty as to the robber's actual appearance. Denying that the repetition of his photographic identification on the day of trial had aided his in-court identification, he asserted that Frazier "looks more like the man at the bank than the photographs do."
In United States v. Holley (4th Cir. 1974) 502 F.2d 273, we Prospectively Adopted a more detailed model instruction on the evaluation of identification evidence patterned after the rule announced in United States v. Telfaire, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 146, 469 F.2d 552 (1972). In the instant appeal, the District Judge could not have reasonably anticipated our decision in Holley And we, therefore, judge the adequacy of his instructions by the rule of this Circuit in effect at the time of the trial.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Does this diagram on the right marked as Exhibit B represent accurately the upstairs of your residence?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can you describe who uses Bedroom 1?
MRS. PETERSON: Yes. That bedroom is used by my three boys, which is (sic) Stanley, Philip and Gary.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And Bedroom 2?
MRS. PETERSON: It is occupied by myself.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And those are the only residents of that house?
Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at 177, n. 14, 94 S.Ct. at 996, left open the question answered in Sells Of whether a third party consent search may be validated in a showing that "the searching officers reasonably believed that * * * (the consenting party) had sufficient authority over the premises to consent to the search."
Application of the exclusionary rule to the fruits of a search conducted under the circumstances in this appeal would seem inappropriate. This is so because the rule is designed "to deter future unlawful police conduct" and not to repair the "personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved." United States v. Calandra (1974) 414 U.S. 338, 347-48, 94 S.Ct. 613, 620. This deterrent function "necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. * * * Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force." Michigan v. Tucker (1974) 417 U.S. 433, 447, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2365, 41 L.Ed.2d 182; Cf., United States v. Peltier (1975) --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374; Brown v. State of Illinois (1975) --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (Powell, J., concurring).
Even according them the status of guests, Mrs. Peterson's interest in the integrity of the premises was clearly superior to any privacy interest held by the codefendants. See United States v. Missler (4th Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 1293, 1301-2, Cert. denied, 397 U.S. 913, 90 S.Ct. 912, 25 L.Ed.2d 93 (1970); Bowles v. United States (1970) 142 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 439 F.2d 536, 540-1, Cert. denied, 401 U.S. 995, 91 S.Ct. 1240, 28 L.Ed.2d 533 (1971); Calhoun v. United States (5th Cir. 1949) 172 F.2d 457, 458. As a practical matter, the codefendants viewed Peterson's bedroom no differently from the other areas of the house for which Mrs. Peterson in any view had unquestioned authority to consent to a police search. In making use of the Peterson home, we think, too, they assumed the risk that Mrs. Peterson might voluntarily consent to a search of the home directed against them.
Accordingly, Peterson's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a severance is without merit. Nor are two additional sources of alleged prejudice to Peterson sufficient to constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion "to the point of contributing to an unfair trial or miscarriage of justice." United States v. Frazier, supra, 394 F.2d at 261.
"The second sentence of the rule is a restatement of existing law that, except in capital cases, the defendant may not defeat the proceedings by voluntarily absenting himself after the trial has been commenced in his presence. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500, Ann.Cas.1913C, 1138 * * *."
" * * * But, where the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, the prevailing rule has been, that if, after the trial has begun in his presence, he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present and leaves the court free to proceed with the trial in like manner and with like effect as if he were present."
" * * * Unlike Tortora, this case began with a single-count information charging possession of heroin. It took less than two months for the case to reach trial, and the trial, including the Miranda hearing, took less than a day. Aside from the chemist, the only witnesses were two arresting officers. In short, no extraordinary circumstances such as found in Tortora Are present here. We agree with the opinion by Judge Lumbard that the judgment to proceed with jury selection without the accused should be undertaken 'only when the public interest clearly outweighs that of the voluntary absent defendant.' * * * To be sure, there may be complex and difficult cases where, on facts like these, it would not be inappropriate to proceed without an accused being present, but this case cannot be viewed as one of them." 295 A.2d at 502-03 (emphasis added).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.