Source: http://openjurist.org/957/f2d/1309
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 02:12:10
Document Index: 346484681

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 9', '§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 1382']

957 F2d 1309 United States v. M S II | OpenJurist
957 F. 2d 1309 - United States v. M S II HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 957 F.2d.
957 F2d 1309 United States v. M S II 957 F.2d 1309
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Helen M. LaVALLEY; Jacqueline Hudson; John S. Ecclestone,II; Peter C. Dougherty; Luella C. Bassett;Elizabeth LaForest; and Kim Leith, Appellants.
Nos. 91-1119, 91-1120 and 91-1123 to 91-1127.
Argued Nov. 5, 1991.Decided Feb. 24, 1992.Rehearing En Banc Denied May 1, 1992.
We turn first to the contentions of LaValley, Hudson and Ecclestone that they were entitled to a trial by jury because a violation of § 1382 is a "serious" rather than "petty" offense. The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Supreme Court, however, has not pursued a literal interpretation of this language, carving out an exception to the rule for "petty offenses". E.g., Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 1291-92, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989). A "petty offense" is one in which the defendant would be subject to no more than a six month period of incarceration. Id. at 542-53, 109 S.Ct. at 1292-93. In cases where the maximum sentence cannot exceed six months, "[a] defendant is entitled to a jury trial in such circumstances only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a 'serious' one." Id. at 543, 109 S.Ct. at 1293 (emphasis added). Such situations, however, are rare. Id. Since the maximum statutory punishment for violations of § 1382 is only a six month period of incarceration, a fine of $5,000 and a five year term of supervised release, the offense is "petty" within the meaning of Blanton. Appellants accordingly are not entitled to trial by jury. United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217, 222 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1044, 94 S.Ct. 550, 38 L.Ed.2d 336 (1973) ("The violation of [s]ection 1382 ... constitutes a petty offense not requiring a trial by jury.").
Ecclestone asserts an additional challenge to the district court's denial of a jury trial. Ecclestone is licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan. His license may be revoked by the Michigan Supreme Court for violations of the laws of the United States. Cf. United States v. Craner, 652 F.2d 23, 26 (9th Cir.1981) ("the threat of loss of a license as important as a driver's license ... is another sign that the DUI defendant's community does not view DUI as a petty offense"). We reject Ecclestone's contention that this additional factor made his violation of § 1382 a "serious" offense. His contention is without merit because the revocation of his bar license is not statutory and because the revocation of his license would not directly follow a conviction under § 1382. Michigan Court Rules § 9.110-12 (providing for a full hearing before a review board prior to the revocation of an attorney's license). Moreover, Ecclestone's assertion, pursued to its logical conclusion, would mean that lawyers have a special right to jury trials because their licenses arguably may be revoked for any infraction of the law. We decline the invitation to create such an exception to Blanton.
In United States v. McCoy, 866 F.2d 826 (6th Cir.1989), we held that the grassy strip in question is part of WAFB. In McCoy, we addressed the issue as to whether the driveway at the main entrance to WAFB is part of the base for purposes of § 1382. In resolving that issue, we cited the district court's finding that "there isn't any question that the entire area up to at least the center of the road, if not beyond, is a part of the military base...." Id. at 831. The grassy strip on which the protestors were apprehended in the instant case was within the boundary that we already have determined to be part of the base. The mere fact that an easement had been granted to the state for the construction, maintenance and use of highway F-41 did not give the protestors the right, in bold defiance of military authority, to enter the base, after being previously barred.
A different question would be presented if appellants' only intrusion into the base was driving an automobile on F-41. Id. In United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting), a case where a defendant was convicted under § 1382 for re-entering Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, Justice Stevens stated that "highways or other public easements often bisect military reservations," and that:
Id. at 698-99, 105 S.Ct. at 2911.
The district court stated: "The testimony, the Court is satisfied, does establish that the records were kept in a regular fashion, that they were part of a regular activity of the enterprise and the provisions of 803(6), I think are sufficient." Although "conclusions of law, such as whether proffered evidence constitutes hearsay within the meaning of Federal Rules of Evidence, are reviewed de novo," United States v. Levy, 904 F.2d 1026, 1029 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 974, 112 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1991), the issues to be resolved in the instant case do not involve either questions of law or the application of the law to factual determinations. Rather, the district court simply made factual findings that the bar letters were not prepared for purposes of litigation. Since we will not set aside a district court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068, 1071 (6th Cir.1989), and since we hold that the court's factual findings were not erroneous, we reject appellants' contention that the bar letters were improperly admitted.
Finally, we consider the contention of appellant Dougherty that his First Amendment rights were violated by the government's "selectively targeting political or protest demonstrations" in an area open to the public. This argument is without merit. Military bases are not public forums. Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 838, 96 S.Ct. 1211, 1217-18, 47 L.Ed.2d 505 (1975) ("The notion that federal military reservations, like municipal streets and parks, have traditionally served as a place for free public assembly and communication of thoughts by private citizens is thus historically and constitutionally false."); McCoy, supra, 866 F.2d at 832-34. Because we have already held that the grassy strip where appellants were apprehended was part of WAFB, Dougherty's claim must necessarily fail. Furthermore, even if the area in question is a public forum, appellant's claim still fails. In Albertini, supra, 472 U.S. at 688, 105 S.Ct. at 2906, the Court found that § 1382 is content-neutral, and "[t]he First Amendment does not bar application of a neutral regulation that incidentally burdens speech merely because a party contends that allowing an exception in the particular case will not threaten important government interests." We find that appellant's speech was at most only incidentally burdened. The bar letters only forbid his entrance onto the WAFB, appellant was still free to protest outside of the base.
In part III. (A), the majority opinion considers whether the federal government granted Michigan an easement to use the land adjacent to Highway F-41 for highway purposes and, if so, whether that land is, nevertheless, part of Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Acknowledging that such an easement exists, the opinion concludes: "The mere fact that an easement had been granted to the state for the construction, maintenance and use of Highway F-41 did not give the protestors the right, in bold defiance of military authority, to enter the base, after being previously barred." Respectfully, it seems to me that that conclusion merely begs the question whether the easement is part of the air base. Rather than analyzing that question, the majority opinion merely declares that the issue has been decided: "In United States v. McCoy, 866 F.2d 826 (6th Cir.1989), we held that the grassy strip in question is part of WAFB."
McCoy did not address the nature of the Air Force's property interest in the land between the permanent chain link fence and the paved portion of F-41. Rather, McCoy focused only upon the driveway leading from F-41 into the base, and this court affirmed the district court on two points: (1) The McCoy court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the driveway was part of the base, holding that "we are certainly in no position to quarrel with Judge Churchill's findings that the driveway area was 'within control of the military' and that '[a]nybody has to have their head in the sand not to see it....' " Id. at 832 (emphasis added). (2) The McCoy court held that the defendant in that case, Joan McCoy, was not using the driveway area for its proper public purpose. In explaining its decision, the McCoy court noted:
McCoy, 866 F.2d at 831 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 699, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 2911-12, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (1985)) (emphasis added). Nowhere in McCoy did the court hold "that the grassy strip in question is part of Wurtsmith Air Force Base."
The decisive issue in this case is whether the defendants, when they were arrested on August 4, 1990, had "reenter[ed] or [were] found within the limits of the United States military reservation at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan" as prohibited by the bar letters previously issued to them. When arrested, the defendants were not on the driveway leading into Wurtsmith, as in McCoy, but rather were on the grassy strip of land between the permanent chain link fence that marks off the boundary of the base and the edge of the pavement of F-41. It appears to me, based upon the documents in evidence in this case, the finding of the trial court, and the applicable Michigan statute, that, as a matter of law, the grassy strip in question is not a part of Wurtsmith.
....[T]he state's use and acceptance of the dedication prevented acquisition of the unused portion by subsequent encroachments of the parties.