Source: http://openjurist.org/547/f2d/987
Timestamp: 2016-02-12 22:56:54
Document Index: 608322100

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 846', '§ 846', '§ 371', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 846', '§ 174', '§ 846', '§ 371', '§ 846', '§ 846', '§ 812']

547 F2d 987 United States v. J Umentum | OpenJurist
547 F. 2d 987 - United States v. J Umentum HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 547 F.2d.
547 F2d 987 United States v. J Umentum 547 F.2d 987
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Clark J. UMENTUM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 76-1210.
Argued Sept. 21, 1976.Decided Nov. 24, 1976.
On June 4, 1975, defendant, together with four others, was charged in Count I of the indictment with conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, a Schedule II Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and in Count II with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 878.5 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II Narcotic Drug Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Two other counts are not involved in this appeal. Three of the defendants entered pleas of guilty to certain counts, one was found not guilty. The defendant was found guilty of both Counts I and II following trial by jury and sentenced to two concurrent seven year imprisonment terms, followed by a statutory three year special parole period. In United States v. Umentum, 401 F.Supp. 746 (E.D.Wis.1975), the pretrial matters in this case are considered.
We do not believe that these internal memoranda were required to be produced pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 or Brady1 as recently interpreted in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). We consider the memoranda neither exculpatory nor material to the defendant's defense. This same issue is discussed more fully in United States v. Orzechowski, 547 F.2d 978, an opinion issued simultaneously with this opinion. In addition, in the present case the defendant had the use of these memoranda during trial. As the trial judge stated, to hold otherwise "would mean that the government would be obliged to turn over every single piece of internal study, research, communication, and point of view that the laboratories of the D.E.A. may have utilized on any phase of the world of cocaine."
In the lower court defendant claimed that it was necessary for the Government to charge an overt act in the indictment. He does not pursue that here, taking notice of numerous cases contrary to that claim, including United States v. King, 521 F.2d 61 (10th Cir. 1975), which, however, defendant relies on to require an overt act instruction. See also United States v. Garfoli, 324 F.2d 909 (7th Cir. 1963); United States v. DeJesus, 520 F.2d 298 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 865, 96 S.Ct. 126, 46 L.Ed.2d 94. Nor is the issue on appeal the absence of proof of acts which might have been labeled overt acts since they are obvious in the record as the defendant candidly concedes in footnote 8 in his brief, page 18.
The issue remaining is should the jury have been instructed nevertheless that there was an overt act proof requirement upon the Government? The defendant relies upon United States v. King, supra. That court held that such an instruction was necessary in a § 846 conspiracy charge regardless of the absence in the statute of an overt act requirement, and regardless of the strength of the evidence. Other cases cited by defendant, such as United States v. Hutchinson, 488 F.2d 484 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 2616, 41 L.Ed.2d 219 (1974), seem to assume that an overt act is a requirement of § 846 without the issue being directly raised. Hutchinson cites for its assumption cases involving a § 371, Title 18, charge, or a charge under its predecessor, which by their language required an overt act.2
Defendant further relies on other cases, such as United States v. Robinson, 503 F.2d 208 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 949, 95 S.Ct. 1333, 43 L.Ed.2d 427 (1975), a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 241, which likewise contains no overt act requirement. In that case there was proof of overt acts. The opinion does not reveal whether or not overt acts were also alleged. The issue we have here was not raised. However, in United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 917, 92 S.Ct. 1767, 32 L.Ed.2d 116 it was held that § 241 does not require that any overt act be shown.
Defendant also cites other cases, such as United States v. Floyd, 496 F.2d 982 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069, 95 S.Ct. 654, 42 L.Ed.2d 664, a § 846 prosecution, in which it appears that overt acts were charged in the indictment. Therefore the particular issue we have was not raised.
In Garfoli, supra, Judge Duffy, writing for the panel, stresses that § 174, now repealed but similar to the present § 846, contains no requirement that an overt act be alleged or proved in contrast to a § 371 conspiracy prosecution. The court held that the act of conspiracy was by itself sufficient, citing Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232 (1913).
In the later case of Singer v. United States, 323 U.S. 338, 65 S.Ct. 282, 89 L.Ed. 285 (1945), a Selective Training & Service Act conspiracy prosecution, the Court recognized that that Act also did not require an overt act for the offense of conspiracy but punished conspiracy "on the common law footing."
Cases other than Cortwright, supra, in other jurisdictions, have also recognized the precedent of older cases holding that no overt act was required under the prior act. These cases aid in the determination of whether an overt act is required under § 846. Nothing in the congressional history of § 846 weakens the force of the earlier interpretations. United States v. DeJesus, supra; United States v. DeViteri, 350 F.Supp. 550 (E.D.N.Y.1972); United States v. Miller, 387 F.Supp. 1097 (D.Conn.1975).
The court apparently was relying on this court's opinion in United States v. Shaffner, 524 F.2d 1021 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920, 96 S.Ct. 1126, 47 L.Ed.2d 327 (1976). The balance of the instruction given made it quite clear that to overcome the presumption of innocence the burden was on the Government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To justify a guilty verdict the jury was instructed that it would have to be satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, rejecting suspicion or conjecture.
We do not approve of the abbreviated form used in this case, but it is less objectionable than the instruction used in Shaffner, supra, which was likewise not approved but which did not require reversal. In Shaffner, supra, the instruction elaborated on what was given here by adding, among other things, that "If that were the rule, few men, however guilty they might be, would be convicted." That language, missing in the present instruction, more nearly parallels in meaning the language found objectionable in United States v. Bridges, 499 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1010, 95 S.Ct. 330, 42 L.Ed.2d 284. The instruction in that case stated that "reasonable doubt" was not for the purpose of "permitting guilty men to escape." What was given in the present case merely limited to some extent the outer extremities of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In no event can reasonable doubt be equated with requiring proof beyond "all possible doubt." This instruction, excluding the necessity of Government proof beyond "all possible doubt," is not as objectionable as equating reasonable doubt with substantial doubt. See United States v. Wright, 542 F.2d 975 (7th Cir. 1976).
First, the defendant objects to the failure of the court to give an instruction defining that portion of the language of 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule II(a)(4), "chemically equivalent or identical." That issue was adversely resolved to defendant in United State v. Orzechowski, supra, decided this date and requires no further discussion.
I think the defendant is entitled to argue to the jury that the Government's testing is insufficient to establish that the substance in question fitted the 21 U.S.Code, 812 Schedule II(a)(4) definition, and I think the Court should instruct the jury that l-cocaine is within the Schedule and that it is for them to determine whether the evidence persuades the jury whether the Government has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that in light of the language of II(a)(4) the substance tested was a controlled substance.
United States v. Skillman, 442 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833, 92 S.Ct. 82, 30 L.Ed.2d 63; United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204, 85 L.Ed. 128 (1940)
One of the elements of the offense charged in Count II is that the substance tested by the Government chemist is cocaine as cocaine is defined in the Controlled Substances Act Controlled Substances Act, Title 21, Section 841(a) (1), Schedule II(a)(4).