Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19660607_0040236.C02.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 00:46:27
Document Index: 379250439

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

| United States v. Dealesandro
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,v.PATRICIA DEALESANDRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
We disagree. In the first place, the case against defendant could hardly have been stronger. Feldman's version of her behavior in the store was corroborated; her story that marital difficulties forced her flight first to Michigan and then to California is hard to believe; she admitted that she knew Joseph Armone, one of the defendants on trial, and that she had talked of knowing him to Feldman, after finding out that he was a juror in a case with the same name. In the second place, her counsel at trial did not object to the prosecution's remarks to the jurors about Feldman being a juror as they were; nor did the defense object to the prosecution's few questions about defendant's physical appearance. In the absence of such objection, these tactics of the prosecution could be grounds for reversal only if extremely inflammatory and prejudicial. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 238-239, 60 S. Ct. 811, 84 L. Ed. 1129; United States v. Johnson, 331 F.2d 281 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Pheribo v. United States, 379 U.S. 905, 85 S. Ct. 196, 13 L. Ed. 2d 178 (1964). These were neither. The questions on physical appearance did no more than bring out what she was wearing and what her hair looked like. The remarks about Feldman's status as a juror did not transgress the bounds of propriety in this jury-tampering case.
The defense did object to the prosecutor's wholesale use of the word "perjurer" in his summation. The judge permitted the prosecution to state that in order to acquit the defendant, the jury would have to find Feldman and the two sales clerks to be perjurers. He sustained a defense objection to the prosecutor's statement that in order to acquit defendant, the Government witness Mendelsohn, a real estate agent, also had to be found to be a perjurer. These rulings were fair. The testimony of Feldman and the two sales clerks was in direct conflict with that of the defendant; the testimony of Mendelsohn was not. The prosecutor's remarks as to the testimony of Feldman and the sales clerks were fair argument, and his remarks about Mendelsohn's testimony, as discounted by the comments of the court, were not prejudicial to defendant.
The summation by the prosecutor did at times attempt to reach dramatic heights but at most it can be characterized as overly flamboyant but not prejudicially inflammatory. Forensic zeal by prosecutor and defense counsel alike is apt to be displayed in these final moments of trial. Although reviewing courts must be ever alert to make sure that a defendant's right to a fair trial not be jeopardized, no such jeopardy is to be found here. Again, however, it might be appropriate to remind counsel that their task is to deal with the proof objectively and that their personal views thereon should not be revealed to the jury. As to the charge, this being a jury tampering case, it was quite appropriate for the trial court to tell the jury that if they were satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that sympathy or any other reason should not cause them to hesitate to render a verdict against defendant, "as a clear warning to all that no one can tamper with the American, impartial jury system, which is the very cornerstone of our democratic institution and get away with it."
Second, she contends that alleged false exculpatory statements should be admissible only if it is determined that they have been made after defendant has been fully informed as to her constitutional rights, including the right to counsel. See United States v. Bando, 244 F.2d 833, 842 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 844, 78 S. Ct. 67, 2 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1957). In the present case, there was a dispute between defendant's testimony and that of the FBI agent as to whether defendant was fully advised of her right to counsel, a dispute which was never resolved explicitly by the judge or submitted explicitly to the jury.
We are by no means ready to accept defendant's premise that exculpatory and inculpatory statements stand on the same basis with respect to the need of warning. However, we do not reach that issue here. Even in defendant's version of her arrest, she was at least in part aware of her right to counsel, and her statements were made in response to brief informal questioning. See United States v. Cone, 354 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1965); United States v. Robinson, 354 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1965). In any case, the defense raised no objection at trial either to the introduction of the statements in question nor to the court's instruction. Had prompt objection been made, the question of the extent to which defendant had been advised of her rights could have been explored and resolved. The failure to make timely objection precludes the raising of the point on appeal. United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907, 86 S. Ct. 887, 15 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1966).
We find no merit in appellant's contention that the trial court erred in denying her requests for a charge on entrapment. Taking defendant's testimony at face value, she mentioned that she knew someone with the same name as the defendant in the case in which he was sitting, to which he said "How well do you know Armone? Maybe I could get a shoe store out of this for myself" -- a statement he immediately qualified by saying he was only kidding. This is hardly a sufficient basis to support the submission of the question of entrapment to the jury. See United States v. Kabot, 295 F.2d 848, 854 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 803, 82 S. Ct. 641, 7 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1962). The case bears no resemblance to those in which a defendant may have attempted to bribe an official out of fear of retaliation by the official who had previously announced his own bribability. E.g., Capuano v. United States, 9 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1925); see Note, Entrapment by Government Officials, 28 Col.L.Rev. 1067, 1074 (1928).
Moreover, Feldman was neither a law enforcement official nor an agent of law enforcement officials. "The conduct with which the defense of entrapment is concerned is the manufacturing of crime by law enforcement officials and their agents." Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 434, 83 S. Ct. 1381, 1385, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1963). The primary reason for the defense of entrapment is that "it is unthinkable that the government should prosecute those whom it has urged to commit [the] crime." United States v. Romano, 278 F.2d 202, 204 (2d Cir. 1960). This being so, "if the initiator of the criminal activity is not a government agent the defense of entrapment does not apply." Ibid.; United States v. Comi, 336 F.2d 856 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 992, 85 S. Ct. 704, 13 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1965); Beard v. United States, 59 F.2d 940 (8th Cir. 1932); Polski v. United States, 33 F.2d 686 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 280 U.S. 591, 50 S. Ct. 39, 74 L. Ed. 640 (1921); Note, Entrapment, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 1333, 1340-42 (1960).
Defendant contends that she was charged in two different counts for what amounted to the same crime. One count referred to 18 U.S.C. § 201 (offering a bribe to a public official -- defined to include a juror -- with intent to influence an official act -- defined to include a decision on a case). The second charged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (endeavoring to influence a juror in the discharge of his duty).
It is true that the two counts charged essentially the same acts. The first count charged defendant with giving, offering, and promising a thing of value to a petit juror, with intent to influence the juror's decision in a pending case. The second charged defendant with endeavoring to influence a petit juror in a pending case by offering the juror money and other things of value. Appellant contends that the joinder of the two counts may have had an adverse psychological effect on the jury, "by suggesting to it that defendant has committed not one but several crimes." United States v. Ketchum, 320 F.2d 3, 8 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 905, 84 S. Ct. 194, 11 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1963).
The fatal defect in the argument is that Congress has explicitly made defendant's conduct criminal in two separate statutes, and has indicated that the two are not to be regarded as defining the same offense. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 proscribes any corrupt endeavor to influence a juror in the discharge of his duty "corruptly, or by threats or force." This statute, which provides for maximum penalties of a $5,000 fine and five years in prison, does not require for its violation an offer or promise of a thing of value. 18 U.S.C. § 201 proscribes the offer or promise of anything of value to a public official with intent to influence any official act, and carries with it maximum penalties of $2,000 fine, 15 years in prison, and disqualification from federal office. The current version of § 201 was enacted after the current version of § 1503. By § 201(k), "the offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title." The Senate Report emphasizes that "the provisions of the section are not to supersede the present statutes making it unlawful to obstruct justice by intimidating or influencing jurors or witnesses." S.Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962); 1962 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News pp. 3852, 3857.
This history makes clear the congressional intent to create two separate offenses, separately indictable and separately punishable. See Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 387, 78 S. Ct. 1280, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1405 (1958).
Even had the court permitted the witnesses to answer these questions, it is clear that no grounds for reversal would have been established. United States v. Gosser, 339 F.2d 102, 112 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 819, 86 S. Ct. 44, 15 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1965); United States v. Giddins, 273 F.2d 843 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 971, 80 S. Ct. 955, 4 L. Ed. 2d 900 (1960); see Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 479, 482, 69 S. Ct. 213, 93 L. Ed. 168 (1948).