Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/752/963/57840/
Timestamp: 2020-02-29 14:16:00
Document Index: 138866654

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1014', '§ 1341', '§ 1503', '§ 1014', '§ 1341', '§ 1503', '§ 1014', '§ 1341', '§ 1503']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Paul E. Davis, Defendant-appellant, 752 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1985) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1985 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Paul E. Davis, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Paul E. Davis, Defendant-appellant, 752 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 752 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1985) Jan. 25, 1985
This is an appeal from a jury trial in which Davis was charged with three counts of making false statements to a federally insured bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and two counts of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The first three counts involved Davis' misrepresentations to federally insured banks that trucks, used as collateral for loans made to him, in fact existed. The mail fraud violations involved the use of the mails to transmit loss notices involving the trucks and insurance payments for their loss. The obstruction of justice counts involved Davis' failure to produce documents requested pursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena and Davis' alleged attempts to interfere with a witness in the proceeding against him.
Davis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions for making false statements to federally insured banks, for mail fraud and for obstruction of justice. The appropriate standard of review for such a contention is whether a "reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Aguirre Aguirre, 716 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is the sole province of the jury to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, an appellate court cannot rebalance that assessment of credibility. Therefore, the appropriate question as to sufficiency of the evidence is to ask merely whether there exists in the record substantial evidence in support of the jury's finding. United States v. Niver, 689 F.2d 520, 529 (5th Cir. 1982). "In making that determination, this Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the government." Aguirre Aguirre, supra, at 297 (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 469, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942)).
Davis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for making false statements to federally insured banks under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that the banks were influenced by the purported existence of the trucks in granting him the loans. Rather, he argues, the evidence reveals that his good relationships with the banks, his spotless credit history and his substantial and unutilized line of credit influenced the banks' decisions to extend the loans to him. Even if we were to agree with Davis' statement of the facts, we do not agree with his interpretation of the law required to support his conviction under these facts.
The crime outlined in Sec. 1014, making it unlawful to make a false statement to a federally insured bank, is a statutory crime of knowing misrepresentation.3 Recently, we stated that "the essence of a section 1014 offense is the making of the false statement with the intent to influence the lender, and it is not dependent upon the accomplishment of that purpose." United States v. Shaid, 730 F.2d 225, 232 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S. Ct. 151, 83 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1984) (emphasis in original). It is a crime of subjective intent that requires neither reliance by the lending institution nor an actual defrauding for its commission. Id. (citing United States v. Bonnette, 663 F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 951, 102 S. Ct. 1456, 71 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1982)); see also United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329, 1340 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944, 98 S. Ct. 1526, 55 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1978).
The federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341,5 has as its purpose the condemnation of "any scheme to defraud in which the mails are used." United States v. Rodgers, 624 F.2d 1303, 1306 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 1360, 67 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1981); United States v. Kreimer, 609 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir. 1980). Mail fraud requires the proof of three elements as to the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant's participation in some scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) the use of the mails "caused by" defendant or someone associated with the scheme; and (3) the use of the mails for the purpose of executing the scheme.6 Rodgers, supra, at 1306.
To establish the first element of mail fraud, the government need only adduce evidence at trial that would allow the jury to infer the existence of a fraudulent scheme or activity in which the defendant participated. United States v. Toney, 598 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1033, 100 S. Ct. 706, 62 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1980). To do so it need only prove a sufficient number of fraudulent activities to support a jury inference that there was a fraudulent scheme in which the defendant had a role. Id. Thus, though the government may have failed to establish that Davis participated in all aspects of an insurance fraud scheme, this does not militate against the jury's presumed finding through its guilty verdicts on counts four and five that Davis devised a scheme to defraud and participated in some aspects thereof.7
Davis offered no direct evidence which contravened this assertion or which rebutted the evidence presented by the government.8 To overcome the jury verdict against him, it is necessary for Davis to show not only that a reasonable alternative conclusion exists but also that the verdict was unreasonable, given the evidence in the record. See, e.g., United States v. Aquirre Aquirre, 716 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 1983). Viewing the evidence elicited from Dillard in a light most favorable to the government, we believe there is substantial evidence to support Davis' obstruction of justice conviction.
The standard of review of the district court's denial of Davis' motion to sever under Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 is whether the district court abused its discretion. United States v. Forrest, 623 F.2d 1107, 1115 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 924, 101 S. Ct. 327, 66 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1980); United States v. Cuesta, 597 F.2d 903, 919 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S. Ct. 451, 62 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1979). In reviewing such a denial, the preliminary inquiry is whether, as a matter of law, initial joinder of the counts was proper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). Forrest, supra, at 1114.
Whether counts charging different criminal offenses may be joined in one indictment brings into play Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a).9 It is the view of this Circuit that "Rule 8 is to be broadly construed in favor of initial joinder." Id. (quoting United States v. Park, 531 F.2d 754, 761 (5th Cir. 1976)). Joinder under Rule 8(a) is proper where the joined charges are based on the same transaction, or are two different transactions that are connected because they are derived from the same set of circumstances. We recently stated that this inquiry may be resolved by addressing the relatedness of the facts underlying each offense.
United States v. Lane, 735 F.2d 799, 804 (5th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). Davis' argument is little more than a conclusory statement that the two obstruction of justice charges and the mail fraud and false statement charges grew out of a separate set of circumstances. Our review convinces us that joinder here was proper.
Both obstruction charges grew out of Davis' attempt to avoid implication in or the detection of a fraudulent scheme. Thus, the coverup attempts bear a logical relationship to the underlying fraud crimes. See United States v. Berardi, 675 F.2d 894, 899 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Park, 531 F.2d 754, 761 (5th Cir. 1976). In United States v. Duzac, 622 F.2d 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012, 101 S. Ct. 570, 66 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1980), the joinder of a perjury count with a count charging violation of civil rights was found proper where the perjured statements were made to a grand jury investigating the underlying civil rights charge and the statements were made in an attempt to conceal defendant's involvement in the civil rights violation. In United States v. Rajewski, 526 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 908, 96 S. Ct. 2231, 48 L. Ed. 2d 833 (1976), the court upheld the joinder of an obstruction of justice charge with a fraud charge where concealment of the fraud was found to be the motive for the obstruction of justice. The court premised its holding upon the evidentiary overlap stating, " [t]he two facets of the evidence were mutually dependent upon and inextricably connected with one another, in spite of the fact that the evidence proving them individually was not identical." Id. at 155; see also Berardi, supra, at 900.
Davis argues he was entitled to a severance of the obstruction of justice counts under Fed. R. Crim. P. 1410 because of prejudice resulting from his not being able to offer evidence to rebut those charges. This Court has noted that "severance is not mandatory simply because a defendant indicates that he has evidence on some counts but not on others." Forrest, supra, at 1115; Alvarez v. Wainwright, 607 F.2d 683, 685 (5th Cir. 1979). Consequently, a defendant seeking severance of charges because he wishes to testify as to some counts but not as to others has the burden of demonstrating "that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and strong need to refrain from testifying on the other." Forrest at 1115; Alvarez at 686. The trial court must balance the prejudice to the defendant due to the absent testimony against the interest in judicial economy. The same considerations should apply where a defendant desires severance so his attorney may testify. We find that Davis has not met his burden of establishing that the properly joined charges were improperly denied severance under Rule 14.
Davis asserts merely that Ethington, his counsel of record at the trial, was a material fact witness to the allegations contained in the obstruction counts. Citing in his brief to no specific evidence in the record, Davis appears to argue that Ethington would have testified that Davis did not possess the relevant documents at the time of the subpoena. With respect to count 7, alleging Davis' attempt to illegally influence Dillard's testimony, Davis argues that Ethington's testimony would have clarified Dillard's status as a non-witness. Both arguments are unavailing. Davis in fact did not proffer what testimony Ethington would give regarding the subpoenaed documents if he were called as a witness. Accordingly, Davis is foreclosed from arguing the absence of Ethington's testimony as a ground of error. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a) (2); United States v. Vitale, 596 F.2d 688, 689 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 868, 100 S. Ct. 143, 62 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1979). However, even if we were to consider the issues that Davis contends are raised by the mere absence of Ethington's testimony, we nevertheless find his contentions to be lacking in any merit.
Similarly, and contrary to the argument of Davis, we find no prejudice resulted from the lack of Ethington's testimony concerning Davis' attempt to influence Dillard in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503.11 It is undisputed that Ethington was not present at the time Davis telephoned Dillard and later met with him. Davis argues, however, that Ethington would have established that Agent Foster had falsely stated to him that Dillard was "sitting on the fence" as far as who he was going to testify for. According to Agent Foster, this conversation took place one day after Davis contacted Dillard; Ethington's testimony, according to Davis, would have established, however, that the date of the conversation was one day prior to the date Davis contacted Dillard.
Davis contends that Agent Foster's remarks about Dillard's status as a witness led his attorney and himself to believe that Dillard was not yet a "witness," so that contacting him as he did was not illegal. Davis misreads the law on this point. "A 'witness' under section 1503 is one who knows or is expected to know material facts and is expected to testify to them or to be called on to testify." Berardi, 675 F.2d at 903 (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Chandler, 604 F.2d 972, 974 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. dism'd, 444 U.S. 1104, 100 S. Ct. 1074, 63 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1980)). This Court has indicated that whether a person is a witness for Sec. 1503 purposes must be determined by substance, not form. Chandler, supra, at 974. One may be a witness even if not yet under formal subpoena, Id.; Odom v. United States, 116 F.2d 996, 998 (5th Cir. 1941), and whether or not the legal proceeding relevant to the "witness" status has even been commenced. Hunt v. United States, 400 F.2d 306, 307-08 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021, 89 S. Ct. 629, 21 L. Ed. 2d 566 (1969). The cases speak only of "witness" status depending, not on whether the witness himself expects to testify or expects to be called, but on whether the defendant knows or should expect that the witness will be called on to testify. Berardi, 675 F.2d at 903 n. 18; Chandler, 604 F.2d at 975 n. 6; Hunt, 400 F.2d at 307-08.
Davis contends that the behavior of the trial court substantially prejudiced his case and denied him due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. He asserts that the trial court improperly made comments on the weight of the evidence, made objections for the government's attorney, curtailed and impeded cross examination by defense counsel, and conducted the trial in such a way that he was prejudiced by the trial court's hostility and antagonistic attitude toward defense counsel. To constitute constitutional error, however, the trial court's actions, viewed as a whole, must amount to intervention which could have led the jury to a predisposition of guilt by improperly confusing the functions of judge and prosecutor. United States v. Abrams, 568 F.2d 411, 423-24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 903, 98 S. Ct. 3089, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1133 (1978) (citing United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213, 1223-24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826, 96 S. Ct. 41, 46 L. Ed. 2d 42 (1975)). In addition, such judicial intervention must be qualitatively and quantitatively substantial to meet this test. United States v. Robinson, 687 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1982).
Davis raises seventeen incidents that took place in the presence of the jury to support his contention that the trial judge exhibited a biased attitude against the defense.13 The exchanges primarily involve interjection into the examination of witnesses by the court, raising, sua sponte, the question of relevance, and comments upon the weight of the evidence. Davis cites this Court to our decision in United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez, 547 F.2d 291, 297 (5th Cir. 1977), in which disparagement, correction, and interruption of defense counsel, inter alia, led to reversal of the conviction. While the record does indicate some tension between the trial judge and Ethington, we do not believe the conduct of the judge rises to the level of a violation of Davis' constitutional rights.
Davis maintains that the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession and thus violated the requisites of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Brady established that a prosecutor has an affirmative constitutional duty to supply a defendant with exculpatory material known to him or in his possession when such material is specifically requested by the defendant. In United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976), the Supreme Court set forth the standard to be applied in situations, as here, where the defendant fails to request, or only generally requests, exculpatory evidence from the government.14 In such cases, the Court stated, reversal is necessary only "if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt [as to the defendant's guilt] that did not otherwise exist." Id. at 112, 96 S. Ct. at 2402. The Court further explained that the materiality of the omitted evidence "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial. On the other hand, if the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt." Agurs, supra, at 112-13, 96 S. Ct. at 2402 (note omitted).
Davis merely sought to conduct a fishing expedition for exculpatory material. The government is correct in asserting that the court is simply not required to ensure access to all government material in order that he might be able to find something exculpatory for his case. United States v. Arroyo-Angulo, 580 F.2d 1137, 1144 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913, 99 S. Ct. 285, 58 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1978); see also United States v. Bland, 432 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912, 91 S. Ct. 877, 27 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1971). The interests of judicial economy militate against granting such open ended requests, absent a constitutional basis that compels such access. Davis' generalized Brady request was properly refused by the trial court.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (1976), in pertinent part, states:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976), in pertinent part, states:
Fed. R. Crim. P. 14, in pertinent part, provides:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1503, in pertinent part, states:
In United States v. Wesley, 748 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1984), we noted that Congress amended Sec. 1503 in 1982 and removed all references to witnesses. We found no indication, however, "that Congress intended that threats against witnesses ... were exempt from prosecution under Sec. 1503." Id. at 964. Thus, urging and advising a witness to testify falsely falls within Sec. 1503.