Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/880/192/242162/
Timestamp: 2020-07-16 15:56:10
Document Index: 500152552

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1951', '§ 1341', '§ 1341', '§ 195110', '§ 1951', '§ 1341']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joseph Soriano; Rickey Santos, Defendants-appellants, 880 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1989) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1989 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joseph Soriano; Rickey Santos, Defendants-appellant...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joseph Soriano; Rickey Santos, Defendants-appellants, 880 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1989)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 880 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1989) Argued and Submitted Dec. 13, 1988. Decided July 12, 1989. Amended Aug. 7, 1989
First, appellants argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to exclude from evidence mutually incriminating tape-recorded statements on Confrontation Clause grounds, or alternatively to sever their trials. Second, the defendants claim that their mail fraud convictions should be reversed because the indictment defines the offense as defrauding citizens' rights to good government and is deficient under McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S. Ct. 2875, 97 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1987). Third, the defendants raise four issues concerning the district court's denial of their motion for acquittal. Finally, Soriano challenges the sufficiency of the indictment with respect to the conspiracy charge. We reverse the mail fraud convictions based on McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S. Ct. 2875, 2879, 97 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1987), and affirm the Hobbs Act conviction.
On October 21, 1987, Soriano and Santos were jointly indicted. Soriano was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Count One), and five counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts Two through Six).6 Santos was charged with two counts of mail fraud (Counts Two and Six) and one count of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 Sec. 1503 (Count Seven).7
Defense counsel each objected in limine to the admission of tape recorded mutually incriminating statements on Confrontation Clause grounds under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968). Defense counsel also moved in the alternative for a severance of the joint trial. Counsel renewed these motions prior to the introduction of the mutually incriminating tapes and transcripts during testimony by the witness Chargualaf who had stealthily obtained the recordings. Counsel also renewed their objection at the close of the government's case and after trial.
The court admitted the tapes and transcripts based on its interpretation of Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 80-90, 91 S. Ct. 210, 215-220, 27 L. Ed. 2d 213 (1970), but noted at a post trial release hearing that Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 193-194, 107 S. Ct. 1714, 1719-1720, 95 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1987), could cause reversal of the order denying suppression or severance. Neither Santos nor Soriano took the stand. The jury returned guilty verdicts against both Soriano and Santos.
The sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. United States v. Buckley, 689 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086, 103 S. Ct. 1778, 76 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1983).
The operative wording of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the mail fraud statute which formed the basis of Counts Two through Six, is as follows:
In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S. Ct. 2875, 2879, 97 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the mail fraud statute does not reach "schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government" and that the statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights." Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 108 S. Ct. 316, 320, 98 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1987). The Supreme Court reversed mail fraud convictions based on a Kentucky official's participation in a scheme to direct commissions on insurance purchased by the state to an insurance agency in which the Kentucky official had a financial stake. The issue was "whether a state officer violates the mail fraud statute if he chooses an insurance agent to provide insurance for the State but specifies that the agent must share its commissions with other named insurance agencies, in one of which the officer has an ownership interest and hence profits when his agency receives part of the commissions." McNally, 107 S. Ct. at 2881-82. Such a kick back scheme did not come within the reach of Sec. 1341. " [A]ny benefit which the Government derives from the statute must be limited to the Government's interest as property-holder." McNally, 107 S. Ct. at 2881 n. 8.
Even if the jury instructions complied with McNally requirements, they cannot cure a basic flaw in the indictment. United States v. Keith, 605 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1979); see also United States v. Marolda, 615 F.2d 867, 871 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1980). Hence, we must determine whether the indictment sufficiently charges a scheme to defraud protected property rights and not merely a scheme to defraud unprotected intangible rights to honest and impartial government. Carpenter v. U.S., 108 S. Ct. at 320-21.
We recently held in United States v. Mitchell, 867 F.2d 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 1989), that a conviction based on conduct constituting a scheme to defraud a city and its citizens of their right to have the city's affairs conducted honestly falls within the scope of McNally and is defective. Mitchell was indicted for allegedly using his position as a Councilman for the City of Redondo Beach to help secure zoning approval for a condominium conversion in exchange for money. The indictment was defective under McNally because it failed to allege that Mitchell intended to deprive the city of money or property. The indictment in Mitchell also failed to allege the city was deprived of control over how its zoning rights were allocated, or that Mitchell intended to defraud the city of any financial interest in relation to zoning approval.
Here, as in United States v. Hilling, 863 F.2d 677, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1988) the proof, indictment and the jury instructions did not assure that the defendants' convictions were based on a scheme that had the result of effecting monetary or property losses. The indictment is permeated with pre-McNally "right to honest services" theory.
Appellants contend that the admission into evidence of their separate tape-recorded conversations with Chargualaf, in which each implicates the other as well as himself, infringed their rights under the sixth amendment's confrontation clause as interpreted in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968), and Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S. Ct. 1714, 95 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1987). If the admission of these effective confessions constituted error, however, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Pangelinan, Manibusan and Chargualaf, all participants in the scheme, testified as to the involvement of Soriano and Santos. Each defendant, moreover, discussed his own participation with Chargualaf; even if these confessions were improperly admitted at trial, we may consider them in determining whether the alleged confrontation clause violation was harmless. Cruz, 481 U.S. at 193-94, 107 S. Ct. at 1719. In light of the overwhelming evidence against Soriano and Santos, any confrontation clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1986) (White, J., concurring.). Although we do not reverse on this issue, we note that the district court might have remedied any Confrontation Clause problem by redacting the confessions to eliminate reference to the codefendants. Such redaction obviates the need for severance of trials or suppression of mutually incriminating confessions.9
Soriano appeals his individual conviction of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 195110 as charged in Count 1 of the indictment on the grounds that the indictment fails to charge all of the required elements and is therefore insufficient.
[K]nowingly and willfully conspired and agreed together with others ... to commit extortion as that term is defined in Title 18 United States Code, Section 1951(b) (2), which extortion would affect commerce as that term is defined in Title 18 United States Code, Section 1951(b) (3) and the movement of materials, equipment, services and labor in commerce.
Soriano relies on United States v. Aguon, 813 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1987) for the proposition that extortion has two additional elements not found in the statute thereby making the indictment factually defective. These additional requisite elements are criminal intent and inducement.
We hold that the indictment sufficiently charged the requisite elements of willfulness and inducement thereby satisfying the Aguon requirements. First, the indictment against Soriano explicitly defines extortion as per 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) (2) which includes the element of "inducement." Second, the indictment also specified the appropriate mens rea, that of acting "knowingly or willingly." Soriano's claim that the indictment runs afoul of Aguon is thus without merit.
A court's balancing of the probative value of evidence against its prejudicial harm is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786, 798 (9th Cir. 1983).
Counts Two through Six charged mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and provided in pertinent part:
We direct the parties' attention to Schmuck v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 1443, 103 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1989) for consideration of the validity of Counts 2 and 6, where the only use of the mails occurred when the bank mailed Santos his cancelled checks. Schmuck strongly suggests that such mailings are insufficient to support a mail fraud conviction. See id. 109 S. Ct. at 1448 (distinguishing Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 65 S. Ct. 148, 89 L. Ed. 88 (1944)
There was no indication in the record that a limiting instruction was given in the instant case. The tapes were also not redacted to eliminate reference to the co-defendants. The Confrontation Clause is not violated by admission of a non-testifying codefendant's confession with a proper limiting instruction when the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant's name, but any reference to his existence. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 107 S. Ct. 1702, 95 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1987)