Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/660/919/41941/
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 01:50:14
Document Index: 438481521

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1954', '§ 1954', '§ 1954', '§ 1954', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 1954', '§ 1503', '§ 1503', '§ 1503', '§ 1503']

United States of America v. Friedland, David, Appellant in No. 80-2052united States of America v. Friedland, Jacob, Appellant in No. 80-2053, 660 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1981 › United States of America v. Friedland, David, Appellant in No. 80-2052united States of America v. Fr...
United States of America v. Friedland, David, Appellant in No. 80-2052united States of America v. Friedland, Jacob, Appellant in No. 80-2053, 660 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 660 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1981)
Argued July 23, 1981. Decided Oct. 1, 1981. Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Nov. 10, 1981
Before trial, the appellants moved to dismiss Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the indictment, on the ground that, by failing to allege any duty, decision, or action on their part as the basis for the payment of the kickback, Counts 2, 3 and 4 failed to charge an essential element of the crimes. The appellants also argued that the charges in these counts, particularly the obstruction of justice charge in Count 5, were not specific enough to be met, or to prevent double jeopardy in future prosecutions. The appellants also moved pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 to sever the income tax fraud counts from the remainder of the indictment, in order to prevent prejudice from joinder. The trial court denied these motions.
Following trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against both Jacob and David Friedland on all counts. The appellants filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c), and in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. The trial court denied appellants' motions.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must find that appellants had some capacity to influence the granting of the loan. Appellants cite this court's decision in United States v. Palmeri, 630 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 1484, 67 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981), in support of this proposition. They contend that Palmeri requires a finding that appellants had a demonstrated capacity to control or influence the issuance of loans. In so doing, appellants read too much into the Palmeri decision. In Palmeri, this court held that one could be among the class of persons whose actions are proscribed by § 1954 even though one has no fiduciary relationship to the employee benefit plan. 630 F.2d at 199-200. The central issue in that case was whether one must have a capacity directly to influence the employee plan in order to violate § 1954. Palmeri clearly stands for the proposition that capacity to influence indirectly is sufficient to support conviction under § 1954.5 The jury in the instant case found that appellants were counsel to the Fund.6 Appellants' status as counsel to the Fund is sufficient to place them in the class of those persons capable of violating either prong of § 1954 simply by soliciting or accepting payment (a) by virtue of their status as counsel, under the "because of" prong, or (b) with an improper purpose, under the "intent" prong. Therefore, the failure to instruct the jury to make a specific finding of "capacity" was not error.
Appellants further contend that the trial court erred in its instructions regarding the "because of" prong, and, because the jury's guilty verdict may have rested on either prong, the verdict must be overturned. See United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 51 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1977). Appellants claim that the trial court erred in charging the jury:
This court confronted a similar argument in United States v. Niederberger, 580 F.2d 63 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 980, 99 S. Ct. 567, 58 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1978). Niederberger was charged with receiving an illegal gratuity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(g), which provides:
(Emphasis supplied.) We rejected Niederberger's claim that the indictment must allege some quid pro quo for the gift received. Noting that § 201(c) (1) substitutes the phrase "in return for" for "because of," we stated:
It is clear, then, that § 201(c) (1) requires as one of its elements a quid pro quo. In fact, we find this to be the primary distinction between subsections (c) (1) and (g)....
We find this analysis equally applicable when it is counsel to a pension fund, and not public officials, who receive what the Niederberger court called an "illegal gratuity." Id. We believe the trial court was correct in not requiring that any action actually be taken in order for the jury to find that the kickback was received "because of" actions, decisions, or other duties relating to the Fund. So long as appellants were counsel to the Fund, and received the kickback (a) because of that status, which gave them at least ostensible power to exercise influence, or (b) with the purpose of exercising the influence they either actually or ostensibly had over decisions regarding the Fund, then they need not be shown to have actually exercised such influence. If actual exercise of influence were a prerequisite to a violation, then anyone who could potentially influence a future decision concerning a pension plan would be free to solicit kickbacks so long as he ultimately took no action to influence the decision. Such a construction is inconsistent with the broad purpose of § 1954. See United States v. Palmeri, 630 F.2d 192, 199-200 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 967, 101 S. Ct. 1484, 67 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981).
Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 51, a party is ordinarily barred from asserting error unless the party "makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor ...." If the exhibits were not intended by the court or the parties to remain in evidence, or were not actually admitted into evidence, appellants cannot now object to their presence in the jury room unless they can show that the court committed "plain error." Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
When exhibits not in evidence reach the jury, a new trial should not be ordered unless it is shown that the evidence was so prejudicial that the defendant was denied a fair trial. United States v. Camporeale, 515 F.2d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 1975); see also United States v. Stoehr, 196 F.2d 276, 283 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, Stoehr v. U. S., 344 U.S. 826, 73 S. Ct. 28, 97 L. Ed. 643 (1952). The expenditures revealed in exhibits G77A and C were inconsequential when compared with those revealed in the remainder of the evidence. We cannot say that the trial court committed "plain error" in finding that the presence of exhibits G77A and C in the jury room did not prejudice the appellants.
Because the evidence concerning the Swiss account was relevant, the only remaining question is whether the evidence should have been excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403, on the ground that "its probative value (was) substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ...." The trial court's ruling that exclusion was not warranted should be affirmed unless it was arbitrary or irrational. United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 985, 99 S. Ct. 577, 58 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1978). The record shows that the trial court carefully considered whether the evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to justify its exclusion, and that the court concluded that it was not. The court's finding was certainly not arbitrary or irrational, and therefore it must be upheld.
Even if these remarks are construed as inaccurate or improper, reversal is appropriate only when defendants are prejudiced by the alleged improprieties. United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723, 737 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S. Ct. 56, 42 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1974). The trial judge is in the best position to weigh the significance of challenged statements in the context of the entire case, to assess the impact of the statements upon the jury, and to determine what remedy, if any, is appropriate. The trial court should be given broad discretion to control the opening remarks. Cf. Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862, 95 S. Ct. 2550, 2555, 45 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1975) (trial court given broad discretion to control closing remarks); Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91, 94 (3d Cir. 1978) (same). The trial court carefully supervised all phases of the trial, including the opening; we cannot say that he abused his discretion in finding these remarks unprejudicial.
Appellants' second contention is that Kate Edelman was not a "witness" within the meaning of § 1503. While this may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. Appellants were charged and convicted under a portion of § 1503 which, unlike the other provisions of § 1503, does not include any reference to a "witness." Rejecting a claim identical to that advanced by appellants, the court in Falk v. United States, 370 F.2d 472 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 926, 87 S. Ct. 2044, 18 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1967), stated:
After the jury verdict, appellants moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, which provides in relevant part:
Jackson v. United States, 359 F.2d 260, 263 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 877, 87 S. Ct. 157, 17 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1966). In the instant case we can discern no prejudice to appellants resulting from the events they allege as variance. As explained in the text, the indictment was sufficient on its face to charge a violation of § 1503. The Government, by subsequently supplying the false statements upon which the indictment was based, placed appellants on notice as to what charges they would have to defend themselves against. See United States v. Izzi, 613 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, Santos v. U. S., 446 U.S. 940, 100 S. Ct. 2162, 64 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1980).
Responding to a credibility challenge similar to that of appellants, the Supreme Court, in Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942), stated: "The short answer to this is that the credibility of a witness is a question for the jury." Id. at 77, 62 S. Ct. at 468