Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/411/522/423941/
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 11:00:14
Document Index: 785139743

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 641', '§ 1707', '§ 3500', '§ 641', '§ 1707', '§ 641']

Luther M. O'brien, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 411 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1969 › Luther M. O'brien, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
Luther M. O'brien, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 411 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1969)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 411 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1969) May 19, 1969
A jury found the appellant guilty of charges contained in a two-count indictment and he was given concurrent one-year sentences under each count. Count One charged that he unlawfully retained and concealed a stolen print-punch money order issuing machine and United States postal money orders with the intent to convert them to his use and gain in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Count Two charged him with unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully appropriating the same property to his own use in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1707.
After a Government witness testified on direct examination, counsel for appellant requested an opportunity "to make a request under the statute of the Jenkes [sic] case." Out of the presence of the jury but in the presence of the defendant, the Government's attorneys, the appellant's attorney and Postal Inspector Brown, the court considered counsel's request thoroughly. The Government was then requested to "turn over to defense counsel any statement alleged to have been made by this witness." The court went into the matter carefully and cautiously, but no "statement" within the purview of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, or any decisions interpreting it, was shown to exist. Counsel for appellant then requested the court to instruct the postal inspector to confer with him "so I can find out from him what previous statements, if any, this witness had made to someone for the purpose of cross examination." The postal inspector did not testify before the jury during the trial.3 The court stated that it would not order or instruct the inspector to submit or not to submit to the requested interview. The record does not show what effort, if any, counsel for appellant made to discuss the case with the inspector or that the inspector had refused to discuss the matter with appellant's counsel.
The Supreme Court has placed an affirmative duty on the trial judge to administer the Jencks Act. Final decision as to production must rest within "the good sense and experience" of the district judge, guided by the standards outlined in Supreme Court decisions.4 We find no violation of the Jencks Act or any other error in the rulings of the district judge on this issue.5
During the jury argument there were objections by both the Government and the appellant. The trial court ruled on all objections made and, in our view, correctly instructed the jury. During oral argument before this court, counsel for appellant raised an additional question about one argument made by the prosecution to which he did not object in the trial court. We have carefully reviewed all of the rulings of the trial judge and find them to be without error. Those arguments to which no objection was made do not constitute plain or obvious error.7
Finally, we come to the contention that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. At the conclusion of the Government's case, the appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal and rested his case without offering evidence. The district court denied the motion and appellant here attacks that ruling. In considering this contention of appellant — perhaps his most important one — we do not retry the case or substitute our judgment for that of the jury. We must review all of the evidence as a whole in the light most favorable to the Government and determine whether a reasonable-minded jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence in this case was largely circumstantial. Such evidence must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and also inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.8
The evidence clearly shows that in September 1965 the United States Post Office in Nesbitt, Mississippi was burglarized and a print-punch money order machine and approximately 600 United States Postal Money Order forms were stolen. The postmaster estimated that the money order machine weighed approximately forty to fifty pounds. A very reluctant Government witness, Hinds, testified that he was present when the machine and money orders were stolen. The money orders were taken to West Memphis, Arkansas and were divided four ways among the witness and three other persons identified as Washam, Sweeney and Henderson. Hinds testified that the name of appellant was mentioned in a conversation with Washam about the stolen property. He further testified that he saw appellant with Washam in Memphis, Tennessee. When asked the question, "Did you see Washam give the defendant, O'Brien, one hundred and five dollars to make a payment on his automobile to induce him to come down here to Mobile and pass the postal money orders?" Hinds responded, "I believe there was some money gave [sic] as an automobile payment. Now what was the other part of the question?" He testified that, while there had been talk about going to Mobile, nothing was said about O'Brien passing money orders. At this point the elicited testimony shifted the scene from Memphis to Mobile, Alabama.
Appellant was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 and § 1707. The elements of the first offense are (1) possession of property (2) with knowledge that it was stolen from the United States (3) with intent to convert to the possessor's use or gain. Section 1707 requires an actual conversion by stealing, purloining, embezzling, or appropriating of property used by the United States.1 On each element the government must present evidence from which jury might find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The significance of what took place at Mrs. Bolling's apartment in Mobile rests on the stipulation, ultimately wrung from the government at trial, that appellant said nothing at the apartment, and the evidence that with a single and doubtful exception he did nothing at the apartment other than to be in the presence of the stolen property and of discussion concerning it. The pleas to Mrs. Bolling to pass money orders, the promises of clothing and disguises, the assurances she would not be apprehended, the identification of the two (unopened) boxes as containing money order forms and the punch machine, and the statement of the value of the money orders, all came from Washam and Sweeney, none from appellant. The only inference, and for reasons discussed below it is a tenuous one, tending to show appellant did anything is an ambiguous reference to "they" taking the boxes to the car and putting them in the back seat.
Causey v. United States, 352 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1965) requires reversal for insufficiency of the evidence. This court reversed the conviction of Burl E. Causey on one count charging receipt, concealment and retention of postal money orders in violation of § 641, eight counts of forgery and one count of conspiracy. The evidence established that Causey was in and out of the house where the money orders were being forged on the night that the forging took place, that he took an auto trip with the other defendants, that on the trip some of the stolen money orders were passed, that the defendant signed the guest register for the group in a couple of motels. Without discussion the court out of hand rejected the evidence as insufficient on all except the conspiracy count, and after discussing the facts held as to that count nothing had been proved other than an opportunity, by association with the guilty parties, to become a conspirator.
In my view this case also calls for reversal for prosecutorial overkill in argument, inextricably linked to earlier prosecutorial conduct during the taking of testimony.3 Over and over again defense counsel objected, often without success, to efforts in the testimony (describing events at Mrs. Bolling's apartment) to catch appellant in the sweep of terminology describing what "they" did and "they" said, for the occurrences there are central to the issues of possession by and intent of the appellant. And each time, when forced to the wall of strict accuracy, government counsel, and Mrs. Bolling, receded to recognition that "they" did not include appellant.4
In the first government argument to the jury counsel resumed the "they" approach, including appellant in both what "they" did and "they" said at the apartment. On objection by defense counsel, the court reminded the prosecutor of the stipulation that appellant had said nothing. One would have thought this would, at long last, have ended a prosecutorial approach which never should have begun. But in final argument the second government counsel picked up the refrain. His highly prejudicial and repeatedly incorrect remarks are set out in the margin.5 There was no objection at this point. But one cannot fairly fault defense counsel. He had met with little success in his efforts throughout the trial to restrain government counsel from tarring appellant with the brush of the plural pronoun, and having literally forced a stipulation on this matter, which went to the heart of the government's case, he had found it impossible to hold counsel to it.
Statements by official representatives of our government must be taken to mean what they say. And courts must be willing to insist that what is said be adhered to. "Judicial discipline of lawyers is not self-operating. It must be invoked." Roscoe Pound, Criminal Justice in America, 187 at 195-196 (1930).
Unfortunately this is not a case in which one can fairly say that counsel was momentarily carried away with "the excitement of the trial" and "the ardor of advocacy,6 or that these were mere forensic missteps. A reading of the record discloses the consistent thread of government effort to catch appellant in the net of what was done and said by others by characterizing occurrences in terms that included him.
This is not all. In argument, in attempting to tie in appellant, government counsel overstated what the evidence showed as to critical matters. These included a statement that appellant and Hinds discussed the money orders in Memphis — there was no such testimony. In each instance after objection, the court would instruct the jury that if the statements were not correct to disregard them. In the context of this case those admonitions were not sufficient.
Government counsel over objection referred to defense counsel as having mistreated and maltreated Mrs. Bolling and having been cruel to her on the witness stand. One prosecutor referred to the men in the Bolling apartment as "hoods." Objection to this was sustained, motion for mistrial denied, and the prosecutor apologized to the court. The final sentence of the first government argument was:
"He is guilty. We know he is guilty, and I submit the verdict ought to be guilty." (Emphasis added)
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
295 U.S. at 88, 55 S. Ct. at 633, 79 L. Ed. at 1321.
Appellant's brief does not specify errors with certainty. Under the caption "Issues Presented For Review" is the following:
Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 354-355, 79 S. Ct. 1217, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1287 (1959); Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 89, 81 S. Ct. 421, 5 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1961)
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S. Ct. 1375, 87 L. Ed. 1774 (1943); Mishan v. United States, 345 F.2d 790, 791 (5th Cir. 1965); Fabianich v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 302 F.2d 904, 905 (1962); Clark v. United States, 267 F.2d 99, 101 (4th Cir. 1959)
For a discussion of the elements of both offenses,see Conerly v. United States, 350 F.2d 679 (9th Cir. 1965).
MR. HAAS [Defense Counsel]: Now, if the Court please, this witness doesn't know what may or may not have been in the mind of someone else, calls for a conclusion.
For a full discussion of the problem,see R. Singer, Forensic Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors — How it Grew, 20 Ala.L.Rev. 227 (1968).
On cross-examination of Mrs. Bolling defense counsel, most of his objections to the "they" testimony having been unsuccessful, sought to show a prior inconsistent statement by Mrs. Bolling to the effect that appellant had said nothing. It was not until this time that the government, in objecting to the statement as irrelevant, acknowledged that appellant had said nothing at the apartment
MR. SEGREST: Can it be doubted that Luther M. O'Brien and Washam, one of the people that there is testimony to you that burglarized this Nesbitt, Mississippi Post Office — came here to Mobile to Church Street, and went into a house together —O'Brien, Washam, and Sweeney. That they took these two boxes in there. That they discussed the fact that in those boxes were the money orders and the stolen print-punch money order machine. And they discussed passing them. They needed help passing them. And they asked these girls to go with them. (Emphasis added)
Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 498, 17 S. Ct. 375, 41 L. Ed. 799, 803 (1897)
Justice Sutherland said in Berger " [A]ssertions of personal knowledge [by the prosecuting attorney] are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 at 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, at 633, 79 L. Ed. 1314 at 1321 (1935).
This record does not fairly support any inference that defense counsel was "riding the verdict," Cf. Crocklin v. United States, 252 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1958). He repeatedly sought to keep government counsel within bounds and once in oral argument moved for a mistrial (for the reference to "hoods").