Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19750717_0040100.C03.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 00:33:14
Document Index: 52639926

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1952', '§ 371', '§ 1335', 'art, 389', '§ 1335', '§ 1335', '§ 1335', '§ 1335']

| United States v. Shaffer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.ALBERT MARTIN SHAFFER, JR., AKA, "MONK", AND BASIL VESPE BASIL VESPE, APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE (D.C. Crim. No. 74-71).
The defendant appeals from his sentence on a conviction for extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court wrote two opinions: United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Del. 1975); United States v. Shaffer, 383 F. Supp. 339 (D. Del. 1974), which contain the background facts.
"Now, members of the jury: This is a conspiracy case and what has just been testified to is an alleged statement by a co-conspirator, Shaffer. You may not take into consideration - I have permitted this evidence to be admitted, subject to being stricken later if it is not proven by the Government that there was a conspiracy that existed between Mr. Vespe and Mr. Shaffer. If there was a conspiracy and that is proven by independent evidence, aside from any declarations made by Shaffer, then you may consider that evidence. But you cannot consider the evidence until the Government has proven that there was actually a conspiracy between Shaffer and Vespe, because a declaration of Shaffer could not be held against Vespe under the rules of evidence in a court of law in the United States.
N.T. 121-22 (quoted, 389 F. Supp. at 1370). The defendant contends that the second sentence in this precautionary instruction left the impression in the minds of the jurors that the conspiracy would have been proven if the court did not subsequently strike the evidence. Since the court did not subsequently strike the evidence, the defendant argues that the jury was in effect directed to find the defendant guilty.
If the second sentence stood alone, we would have to agree that it improperly usurped the jury's function in determining whether Vespe and Shaffer had conspired. However, the offending sentence was embedded in a long trial in which the instructions to the jury, when read as a whole, on the co-conspirator rule were not only consistent with due process but were actually favorable to the accused. The remainder of the precautionary instruction quoted above, in particular, suggests that the Government must prove to the jury that a conspiracy existed between Vespe and Shaffer before they may consider Shaffer's hearsay declarations as evidence against Vespe. To the same effect was the court's final charge:
"Therefore, statements of any conspirator, which are not in furtherance of the conspiracy, or made before its existence, or after its termination, may be considered as evidence only against the person who made them."*fn1
N.T. 743, 747-48 (quoted, 389 F. Supp. at 1371). By instructing the jury that they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Vespe was connected with a conspiracy before they could consider Shaffer's declarations against him, the court in effect required the Government to meet its burden on the basis of the proof aliunde alone. If the proof aliunde did not convince the jury of Vespe's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court's charge did not allow them to resolve their doubts through the use of Shaffer's declarations. Because the court's final charge thus required the Government to meet its burden by proof aliunde, we believe that any prejudice which may have been caused by the court's earlier precautionary instruction was ultimately nullified, so that reversible error was not committed.
A second argument advanced by the defendant also deserves some discussion. The defendant contends that because it violated Delaware law for Delaware police officers to record his telephone conversations with Remedio, the recordings should not have been admitted into evidence. 11 Del. C. § 1335 (quoted in part, 389 F. Supp. at 1372 n.10) provides in part:
"A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, he . . . .
The district court found, first, that § 1335 does not prohibit a party to a telephone conversation to record it, and, second, that even if § 1335 were violated, it would have no effect on the admissibility of the recordings in federal court. 389 F. Supp. at 1372-73. Because we agree with the second ground for the district court's decision, we need not address the question of the proper construction of § 1335.
It is thoroughly settled that, in criminal cases, the federal district courts will decide evidence questions on the basis of federal, rather than state, law. United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 49, slip op. at 2-3 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Vespe, supra at 1372-73 (citing cases). Cf. United States v. Bedford, 519 F.2d 650, slip op. at 5-6 (3d Cir. 1975). This rule is grounded in sound policy considerations. If the states could require federal courts to exclude evidence in federal criminal cases, some convictions would undoubtedly be lost, and the enforcement of congressional policy would be weakened.
We recently decided that "the warrantless recording of a telephone conversation with the consent of only one of the parties is perfectly proper under federal law . . . ." United States v. Armocida, supra 515 F.2d at 52. The defendant, however, inveighs against the creation of a situation in which the federal courts approve violations of Delaware law by Delaware police officers. In considering this argument, we note initially that the FBI had become involved in the case before Remedio's phone was tapped. 389 F. Supp. at 1364. In this situation, it is difficult to understand how Delaware's policy of protecting its residents' privacy could be served by excluding the evidence developed by the Delaware officers at the request of Remedio, a Delaware citizen. Such a holding would simply force the FBI to do the tapping in similar cases in the future, which would be clearly permissible under our holding in United States v. Armocida, supra, and which would be indistinguishable from the point of view of the person whose call was intercepted, from the taps in the case before us. Furthermore, Delaware can, if it chooses, enforce its policy with respect to its own officers through the use of civil suits against persons who violate § 1335. For these reasons, we have concluded that the possible harm caused to Delaware's policy occasioned by admission of the wiretap evidence in the case before us is greatly exaggerated by the defendant, and should not deter us from enforcing federal standards of admissibility.
We have carefully considered all the other contentions raised by the appellant, and have found them to be without merit.*fn2 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.