Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19890630_0040675.C03.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 09:07:46
Document Index: 626423522

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3161', 'art:\n18', '§ 3161', '§ 3731', '§ 2518', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161']

filed: June 30, 1989.
THE UNITED STATESv.HARRY DAVID TYLER, GLORIA WATKINS, HARRY DAVID TYLER, APPELLANT
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, D.C. Crim. Action No. 87-128.
Seitz,*fn* Stapleton and Cowen, Circuit Judges.
The postal employees reported the robbery to the authorities, and described the robber to a Pittsburgh police officer as "a black male, approximately 5-10 to six foot, 200 pounds, black hair, close cropped . . . he had a cap, the color was blue, the style was [tassel]. He had a blue full length coat and full overalls." App. at 326.
On the basis of this evidence, search and arrest warrants were executed at Watkins' house. Although the search yielded no large amounts of money or stamps, the postal inspectors did find a rusty-barrel revolver, a navy blue tassel cap, and a light blue baseball cap with white markings. Shortly after his arrest, Tyler signed a written statement in which he said, "[The] only time I was ever in [the Shadyside] post office was about a year ago when I took Gloria a sandwich for lunch." App. at 439.
The primary issue presented in this appeal concerns the alleged Speedy Trial Act violation. Section 3161(c)(1) of the Act provides that "in any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant . . . shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment. . .." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). The seventy day requirement is subject to a number of exceptions, however; in particular, with respect to this case, the Act provides in pertinent part:
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(E).
The parties do not dispute the district court's finding that 207 days elapsed from the filing of the indictment to the commencement of trial, nor that 140 days elapsed from the date the government filed the petition for writ of mandamus to the date when the district court received notification of this court's order disposing of the petition. More important, the parties agree that if these 140 days are excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, Tyler's trial was timely. Rather, the issue contested by the parties is whether the time taken to process the petition for writ of mandamus can be properly excluded.*fn1 The district court below, in dismissing the defendant's motion for a new trial, accepted the government's position that a petition for writ of mandamus is excludable as "another proceeding concerning the defendant," analogous to an interlocutory appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(E). We agree.
(Section (h)(1)(D))
1. This exclusion applies to appeals taken by the United States under 18 U.S.C. Section 3731, to similar appeals under 18 U.S.C. Section 2518(10)(b), and to appeals taken under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and 18 U.S.C. Section 3147(b). It also applies to applications for extraordinary writs (which can also be excluded under 3161(h)(1), and/or under 3161(h)(8)).
The Criminal Law Committee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, expressly recognizing the apparent congressional support for the Second Circuit's "relatively expansive" interpretation of the exclusions, adopted its position in December of 1979. The Criminal Law Committee interpreted Section 3161(h)(1)(E) as follows:
General. This exclusion applies to appeals taken under the second clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3731 from decisions or orders suppressing or excluding evidence or requiring the return of seized property, and to similar appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(b). Although an application for an extraordinary writ is not, strictly speaking, an "interlocutory appeal," it is an analogous "other proceeding" excludable under paragraph (h)(1).
Although the nominal defendant in a mandamus action is the district judge, the exceptions enumerated in section 3161(h)(1) are not limited to "other proceedings where the defendant is a party;" rather, the language speaks in terms of delay resulting from "other proceedings concerning the defendant." There is no question that the petition for writ of mandamus in this case sought review of the district court's decision to grant Tyler's request for a blank line-up and the subpoenaing of "persons who look like Tyler." Accordingly, Tyler was the real party in interest opposing the mandamus petition and a review of the district court's decision plainly concerned the defendant.
More important, we perceive no principled basis upon which to distinguish this kind of interlocutory review with "any interlocutory appeal" expressly excluded under section 3161(h)(1)(E). The petition for writ of mandamus sought appellate review of a district court's order concerning a pretrial ruling rendered prior to final judgment. Accordingly, it was the functional equivalent of an interlocutory appeal. We can think of no reason why Congress would have wished the two treated differently for Speedy Trial Act purposes.
The same reasons that support excluding delay resulting from "any interlocutory appeal," also militate in favor of excluding delay resulting from the processing of the petition for writ of mandamus in this case. This court held in United States v. Felton, 811 F.2d 190, 198 (3d Cir. 1987) (in banc), that "the purpose of [§ 3161(h)(1)(E)] is to remove from the Speedy Trial Act calculation periods when the district court justifiably cannot try the defendant's case."*fn2 In this proceeding, the district court justifiably delayed the trial to await the outcome of the mandamus action because it believed that result potentially could have affected the trial. Specifically, the district court declared when first confronted with the Speedy Trial Act claim at the commencement of trial, that it was inappropriate "to bar prosecution when there is a question of importance pending in the Court of Appeals that theoretically could have affected the trial of this case and [on] which the District Court in good faith waited the guidance of the Court of Appeals." App. at 45.
Although a panel of this court ultimately declared the mandamus petition to be moot, the district court could not have predicted that result with any degree of certainty. Indeed, Judge Aldisert, on the government's direct appeal of the denial of its motion to stay the blank line-up, indicated just the opposite; while denying the stay, he nevertheless opined: "[I] strongly believe, however, that the petition for mandamus should not be considered moot because of the profound public interest in the issue and the reality that the issue is capable of repetition and evading review." Gov.App. at 50-51. We are also not troubled by the fact that the government elected not to seek suppression of the line-up evidence in its petition for writ of mandamus. According to the government, it felt constrained from moving to suppress what was arguably exculpatory evidence. We recognize that the merits panel ultimately found the government's failure to seek this relief important to the disposition in the mandamus action, reasoning that no live controversy existed because the line-up had proceeded during the pendency of the action and the government was not challenging the admission of the results at trial. Nevertheless, the government opposed the suggestion of mootness and its position was clearly an arguable one.
For these reasons we hold that the 140 days that elapsed between the filing of the mandamus petition and the notification to the district court of the disposition of that petition was "a period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(E). It follows that Tyler's trial was timely.
To the extent that Tyler is making an authentication argument, he is in error. The cap was offered into evidence as a cap found at Tyler's residence. It was properly authenticated as being the cap so found through the testimony of Tyrone Garrison, the United States Postal Inspector who conducted the search, at the time when the government moved for the cap's admission at trial. Fed.R.Evid. 901.*fn3 Thus, we perceive no authentication problem with the introduction of the cap.
[The] blue baseball cap was properly admitted as evidence following the witness's testimony that the robber was wearing such a cap, Transcript at 306-308 and 314-315, and the specific shade of blue or the color scheme went to the weight of the evidence.
The third error alleged by Tyler involves the government's introduction of testimony that Gloria Watkins was in jail. Tyler argues that the government deliberately elicited this testimony during the cross-examination of Tyler's sister in violation of the district court's pretrial ruling that Watkins' convictions, which were for the same crimes that Tyler stood accused, could not be admitted into evidence at Tyler's trial. According to Tyler, by eliciting this highly prejudicial testimony, the government deprived him of a fair trial in violation of the due process clause and the district court should have declared a mistrial.*fn4
In support of his position, Tyler relies heavily on our decisions in United States v. Gullo, 502 F.2d 759 (3d. Cir. 1975), and United States v. Newman, 490 F.2d 139 (3d.Cir. 1974). In Gullo we held that the defendant did not receive a fair trial where, in the course of asking a question, the prosecution revealed to the jury that the defendant's co-conspirator had pleaded guilty. Similarly, in Newman we found reversible error and ordered a new trial because testimony was admitted concerning the conviction of a co-defendant. We reasoned:
Moreover, in both Gullo and Newman we expressly recognized that appropriate curative instructions can remedy an error in this context, although in those cases we found the instructions lacking. In Newman, we indicated that ". . . the district court should have instructed that the testimony regarding [the convicted co-defendant] was no proof whatsoever of [the defendant's] guilt and that the testimony proffered should be disregarded completely in determining the guilt or innocence of [the defendant]." Id. at 144. Measured against that standard, we find the curative instructions in this case to be more than adequate.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the principle that even in criminal cases, the court will "normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an 'overwhelming probability' that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109, 97 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1978)(citations omitted). This case does not present the kind of extraordinary situation and inherent risk of prejudice to the defendant that requires us to disregard the presumption that jurors will follow the instructions given to them. Based on our review of the record, we are confident that the instructions in this case fully cured any prosecutorial error below, and that, accordingly, the defendant received a fair trial.
I join in the majority's decision that appellant's conviction should be affirmed because I agree that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, that the baseball cap was properly admitted into evidence and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial. I write separately because I prefer to rest my conclusion that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated solely on the ground that the delay resulting from the government's petition for a writ of mandamus, albeit filed in the court of appeals, was an "other proceeding concerning the defendant," and thus automatically excluded under the general provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1).