Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/740/903/233472/
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 21:05:51
Document Index: 503782253

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 3500', '§ 846', '§ 952', '§ 841', '§ 1001', '§ 1595', '§ 1001', '§ 1001']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. August Carl Benz, Defendant-appellant, 740 F.2d 903 (11th Cir. 1984) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eleventh Circuit › 1984 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. August Carl Benz, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. August Carl Benz, Defendant-appellant, 740 F.2d 903 (11th Cir. 1984)
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 740 F.2d 903 (11th Cir. 1984)
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Benz' convictions, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, "drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, and making the credibility choices that support the jury's verdict [to determine whether] a reasonable jury could have found [Benz] guilty beyond reasonable doubt." United States v. Pierre, 688 F.2d 724, 725 (11th Cir. 1982). The evidence may be sufficient though it does not "exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or [is not] wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt." Id. We conclude that the evidence presented at Benz' trial was plainly sufficient to convict him on both counts of the indictment.
The prerequisites to a finding of guilt on the conspiracy count are proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the conspiracy's existence, Benz' knowledge of it, and his agreement to become a member. United States v. Marszalkowski, 669 F.2d 655, 661 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 906, 103 S. Ct. 208, 74 L. Ed. 2d 167 (1982). Benz was present at several meetings where the smuggling venture was discussed. His boat was used to transport the marijuana. He asked Hunt to captain the boat. He acted as liaison between Hunt and Cowart once during the trip. Finally, Benz knew to send Lee to look for the Carpe Diem at Hernando Beach where Hunt and Maros had left it. A jury could reasonably infer Benz' knowledge of and participation in an extant conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States.
The court's refusal to deliver Benz' requested instruction constituted reversible error only if the requested instruction (1) was correct, (2) was not substantially covered by the court's charge to the jury, and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important that the failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant's ability to conduct his defense. United States v. Stone, 702 F.2d 1333, 1339 (11th Cir. 1983).
Benz next argues that the judge erred in omitting the pattern jury instructions on overt acts from the charge he gave. The former Fifth Circuit has held that no allegation or proof of an overt act is required for a conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 or 963, the statutes on which the count one conspiracy charge was founded in this case. United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.2d 906, 919 n. 37 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 835, 101 S. Ct. 108, 66 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1980). Accordingly, a jury instruction regarding overt acts was unnecessary. We agree with the Seventh Circuit's observation that " [i]f an overt act need not be charged, it need not be proved. If an overt act need be neither charged nor proved, there remains nothing about which to instruct on that issue." United States v. Umentum, 547 F.2d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 983, 97 S. Ct. 1677, 52 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1977). See also United States v. Brown, 692 F.2d 345, 348 (5th Cir. 1982).
Benz claims that the district judge abused his discretion in refusing to sever counts one and two for trial.11 The grant or denial of such a severance is within the discretion of the trial court and that denial will not warrant reversal unless clear prejudice is shown. United States v. Park, 531 F.2d 754, 761 (5th Cir. 1976). The burden of demonstrating prejudice is a difficult one and the ruling of the trial judge will rarely be disturbed on review. Id. at 762 (quoting Tillman v. United States, 406 F.2d 930, 934 (5th Cir. 1969)), vacated in part on other grounds, 395 U.S. 830, 89 S. Ct. 2143, 23 L. Ed. 2d 742 (1969).
In deciding the motion to sever under Fed. R. Crim. P. 14, the trial judge was required to balance the prejudice to the defendant against the interests of judicial economy. United States v. Forrest, 623 F.2d 1107, 1115 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 924, 101 S. Ct. 327, 66 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1980). Where, as here, the defendant sought a severance of counts because he wished to testify to the false statement charge but not the conspiracy, he was required to demonstrate "that he ha [d] both important testimony to give concerning one count and strong need to refrain from testifying on the other." Id. (quoting Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 965, 91 S. Ct. 367, 91 S. Ct. 367, 27 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1970)).
We note initially that Benz misjudges the extent to which he could have limited his cross-examination had count two been tried alone. As the district court pointed out in denying Benz' motion for a severance of counts, at a trial restricted to count two the prosecutor could have exposed the smuggling enterprise and Benz' involvement in it in order to show why Benz might have been inclined to fabricate the charter agreement. And if Benz took the stand, he would have subjected himself to the same cross-examination he would have faced had he testified in the proceedings below. Cf. United States v. Bronco, 597 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir. 1979) (denial of motion for severance reversible error because of prejudice to defendant where "same jury would hear the evidence of all crimes and [defendant] would not be able to testify about one set of events without being cross-examined on the other.") Moreover, Benz' testimony could be used by the government in its case-in-chief or as impeachment in a subsequent trial on the conspiracy count. See Fed.R.Evid. 804(b) (1). Knowing this, Benz might well have decided not to testify if he had been granted a severance.
In United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 950, 102 S. Ct. 1453, 71 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1982),13 as here, the facts, to which the defendant would have testified if he had been granted a severance of counts, were presented to the jury through other testimony. Accordingly, the predecessor to this court found no clear prejudice to the defendant's case in the trial court's denial of his motion for a severance. Similarly, we find that Benz' statement in support of his Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture presented to the jury the facts to which he would have testified. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the two counts of the indictment.
The court denied Benz' pretrial motion for a severance of parties because it was satisfied that Benz would not be prejudiced by being tried with Miller. That determination was well within the court's discretion. Interests of judicial economy generally counsel that coconspirators be tried jointly; we reverse a trial judge's denial of a motion to sever only when the appellant can demonstrate that the denial caused him "compelling prejudice." United States v. Marszalkowski, 669 F.2d 655, 660 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Brock v. United States, 459 U.S. 906, 103 S. Ct. 208, 74 L. Ed. 2d 167 (1982). "Compelling prejudice" means that the jury will not be able to "collate and appraise the independent evidence against each defendant.... [T]hough the task be difficult [unless the jury cannot perform it] severance should not be granted." Tillman v. United States, 406 F.2d 930, 935 (5th Cir.), vacated in part on other grounds, 395 U.S. 830, 89 S. Ct. 2143, 23 L. Ed. 2d 742 (1969). With this standard in mind, we assess the reasonableness of the trial judge's exercise of discretion when he denied Benz' pretrial motion to sever the parties.
We will assume, however, for the sake of discussion, that Benz moved for a mistrial on the ground that Miller's defense had so conflicted with his defense as to deny him a fair trial and that the court denied his motion, concluding that the parties defenses had not "conflict [ed] to the point of being irreconcilable and mutually exclusive." United States v. Crawford, 581 F.2d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 1978). The record amply supports such a conclusion.
Benz contends that the government should have produced for his impeachment of Hunt certain DEA-issued receipts showing that Hunt obtained money from the DEA for "purchase of information." Benz argues that he was entitled to these statements under his general pretrial discovery request, the rules of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (1982), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16.
We first note that Benz has no Jencks Act claim because he did not make a proper Jencks Act motion for the production of Hunt's statements following the prosecutor's direct examination of Hunt. See United States v. Liuzzo, 739 F.2d 541, at 544 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Gatto, 533 F.2d 264, 265 (5th Cir. 1976); 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d Sec. 438. Nor does Benz present a Rule 16 claim because that rule incorporates the limitations of the Jencks Act on discovery of government witness statements. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a) (2). Benz' Brady claim presents a slightly more substantial question.
Brady asserts that the "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196, 1197. The former Fifth Circuit addressed extensively the application of Brady in United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1978). The court described the four distinct categories of Brady problems:
Benz' pretrial motion for discovery of any evidence impeaching coconspirators' statements made in the course and furtherance of the conspiracy was not a sufficiently specific request for the DEA receipts to fall under the first category. See id. at 1351, 1354 (motion requesting " [t]he recorded testimony of any codefendant ... before the grand jury ... which relates to the offense charged" and " [a]ll books, papers, documents ... material to the defense" not sufficiently specific to warrant application of first category standard of review to nondisclosure of FBI witness interview report). The situation certainly does not fall under the third category; it does not involve perjured testimony. Accordingly, the DEA receipts could be analyzed under the second or fourth category. We apply the test for the second category because it incorporates a lower standard of materiality, i.e., that reversal is required if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, than does the fourth category, which would require reversal only if the undisclosed evidence would probably have resulted in an acquittal. Id. at 1354.
The general rule in this circuit is that, if the trial judge strikes erroneously admitted evidence from the record with an instruction that the jury disregard it, the error is cured unless the evidence is so highly prejudicial as to render the error incurable. United States v. Slocum, 708 F.2d 587, 598 (11th Cir. 1983). We do not find Hunt's slip to have been so highly prejudicial as to render the error incurable.
Benz' final point is that the court erred in refusing to admit the "Picado letter" into evidence. He raises this point only in his reply brief. Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before the reviewing court. Knighten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 702 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 249, 78 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1983); Bugg v. International Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America, 674 F.2d 595, 598 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 805, 103 S. Ct. 29, 74 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1983); United States v. Ewing, 445 F.2d 945, 949 n. 8 (10th Cir. 1971) vacated on other grounds, 413 U.S. 913, 93 S. Ct. 3031, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (1973); see 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper & E. Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3974, at 428 (1977). Accordingly, we do not address this argument.
Benz and five others were charged in count one under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 963 (1982) with conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960 (1982) (proscribing the importation of controlled substances, including marijuana) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1982) (proscribing the possession of controlled substances, including marijuana, with intent to distribute). Sections 846 and 963 contain identical language but deal with different subchapters of the drug law: section 846 refers to Subchapter I, Control and Enforcement; section 963 refers to Subchapter II, Import and Export. These two sections provide:
Benz and two of the conspirators indicted in count one, Laurie Miller and Debra Engh, were charged in count two under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 2 (1982). Section 1001 provides:
Customs seized the Carpe Diem under the authority conferred by 19 U.S.C. § 1595a (1982)
Arguably, Benz' statement, that he would testify if the court severed the count one conspiracy charge from the case, was tantamount to a motion for a mistrial for both defendants as to that charge. Miller, however, did not request such relief, thus indicating that she wished to proceed to a verdict on both counts of the indictment with the jury that had been empanelled to try the case. Accordingly, a declaration of mistrial as to Miller would have operated under the double jeopardy clause to acquit her of the count one conspiracy charge unless manifest necessity for the mistrial existed. See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 608, 96 S. Ct. 1075, 1080, 47 L. Ed. 2d 267 (1976)
Benz' counsel would have testified that Miller was never present during his preparation of Benz' Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture, allowing the inference that she did not know, when she signed the form, that it would be submitted to Customs. The law on whether such knowledge was an element of the 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1982) offense was unclear at the time this case was tried. However, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Yermian, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 2936, 82 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1984), has now decided that knowledge that a false statement is in the jurisdiction of a government agency is not an element of a section 1001 offense
It should be noted that knowledge that the document would be submitted to Customs was not a prerequisite for liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1982). United States v. Yermian, supra note 9
It should be observed that the two counts in this case were properly joined under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) initially since they were certainly based on the same "transaction or two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan," as that rule contemplates.