Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/brief-appellee-united-states-america-15
Timestamp: 2015-08-03 06:26:56
Document Index: 206314564

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 3231', '§ 1291', '§ 1', '§ 3231', '§ 1291', '§ 1']

Brief for the Appellee United States of America | ATR | Department of Justice
U.S. v. Eldon Flyn Simmons Date: Monday, September 29, 2003Document Type: Appellate Briefs - DOJ / ATR
This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. No. 03-10515 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELDON FLYN SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, LUBBOCK DIVISION (HONORABLE SAM R. CUMMINGS) BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MARY COLEEN T. SEWELL MITCHELL R. CHITWOOD PAUL KOHLER	WILLIAM MARTIN Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Thanksgiving Tower	1601 Elm Street Suite 4950 Dallas, TX 75201-4717 (214) 880-9401 R. HEWITT PATE Assistant Attorney General
MAKAN DELRAHIM Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOHN J. POWERS, III JAMES J. FREDRICKS Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 601 D Street, N.W. Room 10535 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-1403 TABLE OF CONTENTS JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED STATEMENT OF THE CASE	STATEMENT OF THE FACTS	BACKGROUND
AGC AND A-1 AGREE ON PRICE IN CENTRAL NORTH TEXAS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT	THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING SIMMONS' MOTION TO SEVER
In Denying Simmons' Motion to Sever, the Court Properly Balanced the Potential Prejudice to Simmons Against the Interests of Judicial Economy
The Jury Instructions Provided Adequate Protection Against Prejudice
Simmons Fails to Show Clear, Specific, and Compelling Prejudice Due to Joinder Resulting in an Unfair Trial
The Alleged "Hobson's Choice" Does Not Demonstrate Clear and Compelling Prejudice
The Closing Arguments Do Not Demonstrate Unfair Prejudice Related to Joinder
The Court Properly Instructed the Jury
THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS
The Out-of-Court Statements Were Not Erroneously Admitted Against Simmons as Coconspirator Statements
The Recording of the Conversation between Simmons and Cuevas
CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS AND LENGTH LIMITATION	TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990)	Southway Theatres, Inc. v. Georgia Theatre Company, 672 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1982) United States v. All Star Industries, 962 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1992)	United States v. Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d 1504 (5th Cir. 1989)	United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002)	United States v. Brackett, 113 F.3d 1396 (5th Cir. 1997)	United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980)	United States v. Bullock, 71 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 1995)	United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000)	United States v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748 (5th Cir. 1991)	United States v. Flores, 63 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir. 1995)	United States v. Green, 324 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2003)	United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1988)	United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1983)	United States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2001)	United States v. Kane, 887 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1989)	United States v. Lane, 465 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1972)	United States v. Lowery, 135 F.3d 957 (5th Cir. 1998)	United States v. Malatesta, 583 F.2d 748 (5th Cir. 1978) United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 1998) United States v. Manzella, 782 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 1986)	United States v. Martin, 332 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2003)	United States v. McGuire, 608 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1979)	United States v. Merida, 765 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1985)	United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984)	United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir. 1993)	United States v. Parziale, 947 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1991)	United States v. Peterson, 244 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2001)	United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456 (5th Cir. 1993)	United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998)	United States v. Ricks, 639 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1981)	United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1990)	United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo, 8 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 1993)	United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829 (1st Cir. 1981)	United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1985)	United States v. Williams, 728 F.2d 1402 (11th Cir. 1984)	FEDERAL STATUES AND RULES 15 U.S.C. § 1	18 U.S.C. § 3231	28 U.S.C. § 1291	Fed. R. Evid. 403	Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A)	Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)	JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3231. It entered final judgment and sentence on May 23, 2003. R3-639, RE-9.(1) The Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on May 23, 2003. R3-645. This Court's jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED Whether the court abused its discretion by denying the Appellant's motion to sever. Whether the jury instructions provided a basis for the Appellant's theory of defense and, as a whole, accurately reflected the law. Whether the court abused its discretion by admitting the out-of-court recorded statements of the Appellant and the out-of-court statements contained in the testimony of three government witnesses. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 14, 2001, a federal grand jury sitting in Lubbock, Texas, returned a two-count indictment against Appellant Eldon Flyn Simmons ("Simmons") and James Douglas Kuhn ("Kuhn"). R1-1. Count One of the Indictment charged them with conspiring to fix the price of automotive replacement glass in the central North Texas area from January 1998 until at least May 1998, and Count Two charged them with conspiring to fix its price in Lubbock, Texas, from March 1998 until at least May 1998, both in violation of Section One of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. R1-1-8. On December 16, 2002, after six days of trial and two days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to Simmons on Count Two, the Lubbock conspiracy. R9-1521; R2-454, RE-4. On the remaining counts, the jury could not reach a verdict and the district court declared a mistrial. R9-1522. On February 7, 2003, Simmons filed a motion to sever pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 asking the court to try him and Kuhn separately. R3-524, RE 5. The district court denied the motion, and the second trial began on February 10, 2003. R3-540; R10-4. Simmons was tried on only the central North Texas charge, Count One, while Kuhn was tried on both counts, i.e., the central North Texas price-fixing conspiracy and the Lubbock price-fixing conspiracy. On February 21, 2003, the jury found Simmons guilty as to Count One and Kuhn guilty as to Count One and Count Two. R17-1955; R3-600, RE-8. On May 23, 2003, the court sentenced Simmons to a ten month term of imprisonment, a $75,000 fine, and a one year term of supervised release. R3-639-43, RE-9. That same day, Simmons filed his notice of appeal.(2) R3-645. RE-10. Simmons reported to prison on July 18, 2003. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS BACKGROUND
The automotive replacement glass industry includes the manufacture, wholesale distribution, and retail sale and installation of replacement windshields and side windows for automobiles. R10-134. This case is about the retail part of the industry, i.e. the sale and installation of replacement automotive glass ("auto glass"). R10-149. There are three categories of auto glass customers: 1) commercial accounts such as commercial fleets, car dealerships, and body shops; 2) insurance companies; and 3) cash customers, "[j]ust the guy who walks in off the street and says, 'I need a windshield and I am paying cash for it.'" R10-257-6