Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/814/1428/335915/
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 18:45:24
Document Index: 184519065

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1951', '§ 543', '§ 1951', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 1951', 'art, 723', '§ 3500', '§ 3500']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Phillip Troutman, Defendant-appellant, 814 F.2d 1428 (10th Cir. 1987) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1987 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Phillip Troutman, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Phillip Troutman, Defendant-appellant, 814 F.2d 1428 (10th Cir. 1987)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 814 F.2d 1428 (10th Cir. 1987) March 13, 1987
Phillip E. Troutman appeals his conviction, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, on conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.1 Troutman seeks reversal and remand on the ground the district court erred by refusing to grant his motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, for a judgment of acquittal. We affirm the conviction.I
On November 9, 1984, Paul G. Bardacke, New Mexico Attorney General, and Stephen Westheimer, Deputy Attorney General, were approved to act as Special Assistant United Stated Attorneys for prosecution of criminal charges against Troutman and Johnson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 543(a).7 They appeared with members of the United States Attorney's Office on behalf of the United States during the grand jury's inquiry, at the motions hearing and at trial. The Government presented the case to the grand jury on November 13 and 14, 1984, and Troutman and Johnson were arrested on December 4, 1984. The grand jury reconvened on December 9, 1984 and issued an indictment charging both with conspiring to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.8 On May 14, 1985, Troutman and Johnson were convicted by jury. The district court fined them $5,000 each and sentenced them to two years imprisonment. Troutman appeals from the court's denial of his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for judgment of acquittal.
We also agree with the district court, for reasons set out in the authority cited by the Government, that an inherent conflict of interest does not arise merely because a state attorney general prosecutes a state officer whom he formerly represented. People v. Downen, 119 Ill.App.3d 29, 74 Ill.Dec. 784, 456 N.E.2d 286 (1983) (No conflict of interest arose from a state attorney general's conducting a grand jury investigation into alleged state election irregularities); Ward v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. App. 3d 23, 138 Cal. Rptr. 532 (1977) (Court denied motion of plaintiff, county assessor, to disqualify county attorney as defense counsel from assessor's civil rights suit and rejected assessor's claim he enjoyed an attorney/client relationship with the county attorney when the county attorney had never represented him in any action outside his public duties); State ex rel. Dunbar v. State Board of Equalization, 140 Wash. 433, 249 P. 996 (1926) (No inherent conflict arises from prosecution by the state attorney general of public employees charged with misuse of public funds); see also, Meehan v. Hopps, 144 Cal. App. 2d 284, 301 P.2d 10 (1956). The common thrust of the Government's authority is that a state attorney general has a primary responsibility to protect the interests of the people of the state and must be free to prosecute violations of those interests by a state officer regardless of his representation of the state officer in past or pending litigation.9
We are not moved from our conclusion by the authority on which Troutman relies. The facts in People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown, 29 Cal. 3d 150, 172 Cal. Rptr. 478, 624 P.2d 1206 (1981) are readily distinguishable from the instant facts in that the Attorney General in Brown instituted a lawsuit against the State Personnel Board challenging the constitutionality of an employee relations statute, an issue on which the Board acted against the Attorney General's extensive advice. The Attorney General filed a mandamus action against the Board, the Governor and other state officers and agencies to compel them to ignore the employee relations statute because of its claimed conflict with the state constitution. Holding the Attorney General had a conflict of interest, the California Supreme Court enjoined him from proceeding and dismissed the case. Unlike the Brown defendants, Troutman never communicated with the Attorney General concerning his efforts to solicit political contributions from ITC. Furthermore, the State Personnel Board's action in Brown involved a bona fide administrative decision; Troutman's alleged activities are criminal in nature and cannot be characterized as involving policy matters lying within the scope of his official position.
The district court has absolute discretion to permit a defendant to call the prosecutor as a witness and may deny the request if it does not appear the prosecutor "possesses information vital to the defense." Gajewski v. United States, 321 F.2d 261, 268-69 (8th Cir. 1963). Here, the district court denied Troutman's motion to disqualify Bardacke and Westheimer after its review of the parties' extensive briefs and a full day of oral argument dedicated solely to that issue. The court reasoned, as follows, that the testimony of Bardacke and other members of his staff was not vital to the defense and could be obtained through other witnesses:
As set out in our discussion of his motion to disqualify, Troutman considers Bardacke's testimony necessary evidence on certain questions, primarily those regarding delays in and deadlines for the contract award. Troutman points out the grand jury asked about the reasons for the delays and contends these questions are central to determination of his guilt or innocence under the extortion charge. Therefore, testimony that the actions of Johnson and Troutman were not the sole cause of the delay or that the Board of Finance was not forced to approve FNB and ITC before an immutable deadline constitutes exculpatory material that should have been available to Troutman under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1985), but was denied him by Bardacke's failure to recuse.
First, we reject Troutman's framing of the pivotal legal questions in this action. Under the Hobbs Act, the Government does not have the burden to show Troutman actually controlled the award of the fiscal agent contract; rather, it is required to show the reasonableness of ITC's belief, after being subjected to Troutman's actions and communications, that Troutman could affect the award. United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014, 1027 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386, 394 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Mazzei, 521 F.2d 639, 645 (3d Cir. 1975) (The Court of Appeals upheld a Hobbs Act conviction where payments to the defendant state senator were induced by the victim's reasonable belief the senator controlled the award of state leases, but, as a matter of law, he lacked authority to approve them).
Third, the mere fact the grand jury inquired about the delay did not necessitate Bardacke's withdrawal. As the Government points out, " [t]he scope of a grand jury's investigation is 'necessarily broad if its public responsibility is to be adequately discharged.' " Government's brief at 29 (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 700, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 2666, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972)); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 364, 76 S. Ct. 406, 409, 100 L. Ed. 397 (1956). The breadth of the grand jury inquiry has no bearing on the Government's burden at trial, and nothing that occurred during those proceedings indicates Bardacke should have known he would be called as a defense witness. Moreover, we note the primary purpose of DR 5-102(B) is to prevent an attorney from prejudicing his client by taking the witness stand, a scenario that does not arise here.
Troutman relies completely on a Sixth Circuit decision, In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas, as authority for his argument that Bardacke's participation in the prosecution created the appearance of impropriety in violation of Canon 9 of the ABA Code. 573 F.2d 936 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 934, 99 S. Ct. 1277, 59 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1979). That Court terminated the grand jury proceedings because the participation of an Internal Revenue Service attorney who conducted a civil audit on the defendant and later recommended his criminal prosecution created the impression of partiality and cast a shadow over the integrity of his office. Troutman admits later cases hold that an agency attorney who investigated a matter civilly may also appear as a prosecutor before the grand jury, see, e.g., United States v. Birdman, 602 F.2d 547 (3d Cir. 1979) (Securities Exchange Commission Attorney); In re Perlin, 589 F.2d 260 (7th Cir. 1978) (Commodity Futures Trading Commission Attorney); United States v. Dondich, 460 F. Supp. 849 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (S.E.C. Attorney); however, he claims Bardacke did more than merely investigate the case, and Bardacke's presence in the grand jury proceedings and at trial created the feeling of partiality discussed in Grand Jury Subpoenas.
Canon 9 of the ABA Code states, "A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety." The general language of Canon 9 cannot be construed as a failsafe for a claim of ethical violation where none is found under the specific canons or disciplinary rules applicable to the case at bar.10 Although courts have not foreclosed the possibility of disqualification under Canon 9 alone, see, e.g., Optyl Eyewear Fashion International v. Style Cos., 760 F.2d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 1985) (Canon 9 alone sufficient basis for disqualification of alleged impropriety clear, affects public view of judicial system or court integrity and is serious enough to outweigh parties' interest); Norton v. Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, 689 F.2d 938 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Smith, 653 F.2d 126 (4th Cir. 1981); Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. v. United States, 639 F.2d 749, 754, 226 Ct. Cl. 223 (1981) (such disqualification appropriate in clear, compelling case), they are reluctant to disqualify a lawyer under Canon 9 when none of Canons 1 through 8 were violated. Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 751, 757 (2d Cir. 1975) ("Canon 9 is not intended completely to override the delicate balance created by Canon 4 and the decisions thereunder."); International Electronics Corp. v. Flanzer, 527 F.2d 1288, 1295 (2d Cir. 1975) ("Canon 9 ... should not be used promiscuously as a convenient tool for disqualification when the facts simply do not fit within the rubric of other specific ethical and disciplinary rules"); see also, Gas-a-tron of Arizona v. Union Oil Company, 534 F.2d 1322, 1324-25 (9th Cir. 1976); Schmidt v. Pine Lawn Memorial Park, Inc., 86 S.D. 501, 198 N.W.2d 496, 502-03 (1972); Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire and Maine Ins. Co., 497 F.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 998, 95 S. Ct. 314, 42 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1974). Here, we see no compelling reason to review the question under Canon 9 and its interpretative caselaw where Canons 4 and 5 do not preclude Bardacke's participation in the prosecution.
Troutman moved to dismiss the indictment on the following grounds: 1) the presence before the grand jury of unauthorized persons, Bardacke and Westheimer, violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d);11 2) Bardacke's and Westheimer's participation constituted prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Troutman of due process of law; 3) Bardacke and Westheimer were never administered the oath of office as Assistant United States Attorneys; and 4) prejudicial pre-trial publicity and improper comments during the proceedings tainted the grand jury.
Troutman first contends that upon our holding the Attorney General's participation in this case created a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, we should also hold Bardacke and Westheimer were per se unauthorized persons in the grand jury room. See Corbin, 433 P.2d at 951; United States v. Gold, 470 F. Supp. 1336, 1346 (N.D. Ill. 1979); United States v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 435 F. Supp. 610, 618 (N.D. Okla. 1077).
The matter about which [Bardacke] spoke reasonably can be characterized as an insubstantial arguably uncontested matter. Indeed, the composition of the PERA Board is governed by statute, see N.M.S.A. 10-11-4(B), and a government attorney may advise the grand jury on applicable statutes. United States v. Singer, 660 F.2d 1295 (8th Cir. 1981). Bardacke's brief exchange with the grand juror was an isolated incident, concerning a matter of formality rather than a matter substantively material to the indictment. Under all the circumstances, the Court does not find that Bardacke was an unsworn witness before the grand jury in violation of Rule 6.
United States v. Yoshida, 727 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1983). See, e.g., Plauche-Locke Securities, Inc. v. Johnson, 187 So. 2d 178, 181 (La.App.1966). The upholding of the right hand is not necessary. State v. Parker, 81 Idaho 51, 336 P.2d 318, 321 (1959); In re Rice, 35 Ill.App.2d 79, 181 N.E.2d 742 (1962); Plauche-Locke, 187 So. 2d at 181.
Troutman raises for the first time on appeal his argument that the pre-trial publicity violated DR 7-107(B) (6)13 of the ABA Code and Rule 35 for the District of New Mexico, and poisoned the grand jury's ability to render a true bill. His failure to raise the issue of prejudice to the grand jury with the district court precludes its review except for the "most manifest error." Gundy v. United States, 728 F.2d 484, 488 (10th Cir. 1984). We find no manifest error resulted from the district court's allowing the case to proceed on the indictment.
We consider Lutz' brief press statement a general comment on the complexity of cases involving charges against public officials, not a specific comment on the strengths of the present case or Troutman's guilt or innocence. Therefore, Lutz did not violate DR 7-107(B) (6). Concerning the alleged prejudice to the grand jurors, we view as attenuated at best Troutman's argument the two isolated occurrences during the grand jury proceedings show the grand jurors were tainted by Lutz' statement. Troutman offers no explanation of how the indictment for perjury of Mike Anaya relates to grand jury prejudice. Regarding the grand juror's simple request for a straightforward answer from Mr. Fruman, Troutman asserts, "Clearly, the Juror was skeptical as to the honesty of Mr. Fruman and may have been so because of exposure to Mr. Lutz' statement." Troutman's brief at 16. We are not so convinced. The district court termed Fruman's testimony at trial as "equivocal," and nothing indicates his testimony before the grand jury was more precise. Memorandum Opinion and Order at 14. The grand juror's comment could have been prompted as easily by Fruman's demeanor during the proceedings as by any extra-judicial statement. Dismissal of an indictment is an extraordinary remedy, and we are not inclined to grant it on mere conjecture unsupported by evidence. United States v. Pino, 708 F.2d 523 (10th Cir. 1983).
Troutman asserts the district court erred by denying full disclosure of the grand jury minutes before trial.15 He recognizes the Government is not obligated to furnish transcripts of the grand jury proceedings before the various witnesses have testified on direct, United States v. Gant, 487 F.2d 30 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941, 94 S. Ct. 1946, 40 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1973), and will be ordered to do so only in rare "cases of particularized need where the secrecy of the [grand jury] proceedings is lifted discretely and limitedly." United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1958). Troutman argues the requisite "particularized need" is present because Lutz made two improper comments during his examination of witnesses before the grand jury: the first likened Fruman's early disclosure of Governor Anaya's preference for the fiscal agent to the grand jury's violating its shroud of secrecy, and the second implied the Attorney General's Office had advised the State for a year that the current fiscal agent's added responsibilities were illegal.
After examining the entire transcript of the grand jury proceedings, the district court stated, " [t]he transcript simply does not evidence actions by the prosecutors of infringing upon the independence of the grand jury. No prosecutor testified before the grand jury. None exhibited undue prejudice toward the defendants, badgered witnesses, nor acted in a way that could be characterized as prosecutorial overreaching." Memorandum and Opinion Order at 16.
Troutman's request for the grand jury minutes is governed by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500.16 Under the requirements of the Act, the district court properly conducted an in camera inspection resulting in its ruling that Troutman's claims of prosecutorial conduct were groundless and did not show a particularized need sufficient to warrant early release of the grand jury transcripts.
We further note the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c), concerning preservation for appellate review the court's denial of full disclosure, relate to statements withheld from a defendant after the witness at issue has testified on direct and then apply only upon the defendant's timely objection to the withholding. No such objection appears in the record, and we see no manifest error in the district court's refusal to order the release of the entire grand jury proceedings either before trial or after the direct examination of witnesses during trial.
Troutman moved for severance pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14,17 on two grounds: 1) admissions of Johnson's statements would prejudice Troutman because Johnson made several incriminating statements outside the scope and not in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy; and 2) the jury would be unable to "compartmentalize" the evidence and apply it to Troutman or Johnson according to his individual level of involvement.
At trial, Troutman raised a continuing objection to admission of Johnson's statements on the ground they were hearsay because no conspiracy had first been established by evidence independent of the co-conspirator's statements. United States v. Petersen, 611 F.2d 1313 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Andrews, 585 F.2d 961 (10th Cir. 1978). On appeal he asserts the evidence linking Troutman to the conspiracy was so weak his conviction indicated jury confusion that could have been avoided had the trials been severed.
The Government responds the district court's denial of severance comports with well-established legal principles governing conspiracy cases and is proper considering the present facts. The indictment charged Troutman with conspiracy to commit extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The essence of the crime of conspiracy is an agreement to violate the law. Andrews, 585 F.2d 961. Section 1951 requires the Government to establish that a conspiracy exists and that each of the defendants knowingly contributed his efforts in its furtherance. United States v. Pilling, 721 F.2d 286, 293 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Jackson, 482 F.2d 1167, 1173 (10th Cir. 1973); Collins v. United States, 383 F.2d 296, 300 (10th Cir. 1967). Once a conspiracy is established, only slight evidence is required to connect a co-conspirator, Pilling, 721 F.2d at 293; Andrews, 585 F.2d at 961; United States v. Turner, 528 F.2d 143, 162 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Rodriguez, 498 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1974), and the acts attributable to any member of the conspiracy are attributable to all other members. United States v. Masiello, 235 F.2d 279 (2d Cir. 1956). Conspiracy cases may be proven exclusively by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Henry, 468 F.2d 892 (10th Cir. 1972).
Concerning severance, we have consistently held that, as a general rule, persons charged with conspiracy should be tried together. United States v. Rinke, 778 F.2d 581 (10th Cir.,1985); United States v. Hopkinson, 631 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 969, 101 S. Ct. 1489, 67 L. Ed. 2d 620 (1981); United States v. McGuire, 608 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1979). The defendant has the burden of clearly showing prejudice would result from a joint trial. Id. Mere assertion his chances for acquittal would be better if tried separately is insufficient; he must affirmatively show that a joint trial abridges his right to a fair trial. United States v. Parnell, 581 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1978); United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517, 523-24 (8th Cir. 1977); Masiello, 235 F.2d 279. The decision of whether to sever rests in the district court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Rinke, 778 F.2d 581; United States v. Pack, 773 F.2d 261 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. Rogers, 652 F.2d 972 (10th Cir. 1981). Applying these legal principles to the instant facts, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to sever.
Troutman's primary contention underlying the severance issue is that the district court improperly admitted statements of his co-conspirator, Johnson. The court admitted the statements pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d) (2) (E), which reads:
A statement of a co-conspirator will be admitted over a hearsay objection only upon the Government's establishing by a preponderance of evidence that: 1) a conspiracy existed; 2) the declarant and the defendant against whom the declaration is offered were members of the conspiracy; and 3) the statement was made in the course and furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Metropolitan Enterprises, Inc., 728 F.2d 444 (10th Cir. 1984); Petersen, 611 F.2d 1313; Andrews, 585 F.2d 961. The preferred order of proof for Rule 801(d) (2) (E) evidence requires the Government first to introduce proof of the conspiracy independent from the co-conspirator's statements and second, to connect the defendant to the conspiracy before hearsay declarations of his co-conspirators will be admitted. Petersen, 611 F.2d at 1330-31. In United States v. Harenberg, we recognized that following the preferred order is not always "reasonably practicable" and allowed the district court to admit the statements provisionally, subject to being "connected up" by subsequent independent evidence. 732 F.2d 1507, 1513 (10th Cir. 1984). "The order of proof is within the discretion of the trial judge." Id. (quoting United States v. Kaatz, 705 F.2d 1237, 1244 (10th Cir. 1983)). However, absent "some substantial reason," the preferred order of proof should be adhered to. United States v. Austin, 786 F.2d 986, 990 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v. Behrens, 689 F.2d 154, 158 (10th Cir.); United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379, 1387 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1088, 103 S. Ct. 573, 74 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1982). "Failure to follow the preferred order would be the rare exception rather than the rule." Austin, 786 F.2d at 990.
Troutman further complains he was prejudiced by the admission of the taped conversation involving Johnson and ITC officials because Troutman's participation in the alleged conspiracy had terminated by that time. However, Troutman does not show he withdrew from the conspiracy through his affirmative action either by confessing to authorities or by communicating his withdrawal in a manner reasonably calculated to reach his co-conspirators, United States v. Parnell, 581 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1076, 99 S. Ct. 852, 59 L. Ed. 2d 44 (1979), and a conspiracy is presumed to continue unless a member affirmatively withdraws from it. Id. Furthermore, the district court specifically ruled the conspiracy continued at least until the fiscal agent contract was awarded, four days after the conversation was taped. That conversation, another attempt to coerce ITC, was conducted in the course and furtherance of the conspiracy and was properly admitted against both Troutman and Johnson.
The statements regarding Mike Anaya's contacts with Irving Trust were admitted on cross-examination for purposes of impeachment. Statements attributed to Mike Anaya were not admitted as co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d) (2) (E) Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendant contends further that introduction of statements attributed to Anaya was in breach of an agreement between the parties. The government apparently had agreed not to attempt to introduce those statements in its case-in-chief. Introduction of the statements to impeach a defense witness did not constitute a breach of any such agreement.
Memorandum and Order at 9. The trial court has considerable latitude in its rulings on the limits of cross-examination. Foster v. United States, 282 F.2d 222 (10th Cir. 1960). Cross examination "may embrace any matter germane to the direct examination, qualifying or destroying, or tending to elucidate, modify, explain, contradict, or rebut testimony given in chief by the witness." Leeper v. United States, 446 F.2d 281, 288 (10th Cir. 1971). See also Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S. Ct. 218, 75 L. Ed. 624 (1931); United States v. Varoz, 740 F.2d 772 (10th Cir. 1984). Admission of rebuttal evidence, particularly when the defendant "opens the door" to the subject matter, is within the sound discretion of the district court. Whiteley v. OKC Corp., 719 F.2d 1051 (10th Cir. 1983).
We agree with the district court's reasoning and further note that, viewed as a whole rather than in isolation, these instructions give an accurate statement of the law. United States v. Rothbart, 723 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Jenkins, 701 F.2d 850 (10th Cir. 1983); United States v. Redmond, 546 F.2d 1386 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 995, 98 S. Ct. 1645, 56 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1978). Moreover, the court's instructions were not significantly different from those offered by Troutman, and the procedure of separating the verdict forms reflected Troutman's Requested Jury Instruction No. 4:
The refusal of a jury instruction lies within the discretion of the district court. United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1983). Jury instructions should be limited to the issues present and the facts developed by the evidence. United States v. Linn, 438 F.2d 456 (10th Cir. 1971). An instruction reflecting an abstract statement of the law unrelated to the facts of the case may be refused. Id.; Velasquez v. United States, 244 F.2d 416 (10th Cir. 1957).
Regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Troutman cites extensive authority in support of the proposition that his attorney's inability to investigate fully the case before trial rendered his assistance ineffective. We reject that proposition outright as claims of ineffective assistance rest on the attorney's deficient performance or failure to investigate the "facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent." Procter and Gamble, 356 U.S. at 677, 683, 78 S. Ct. at 983, 986. Evidence shows Troutman's counsel competently and actively investigated this case to the "fullest practicable extent," that is, to the limits of the court's ruling denying pre-trial access to grand jury minutes and refusing to compel the Government's witnesses to testify. Where Troutman does not argue his attorney's affirmative actions or omissions prejudiced his right to a fair trial, the "effective assistance of counsel" cases do not apply, and the sole question germane to this appeal is whether the court properly denied Troutman pre-trial access to grand jury minutes and certain government witnesses.
In 1958, the United States Supreme Court held the newly enacted section 3500 procedures respecting production of witness statements and reports in the Government's possession were not unconstitutional. Scales v. United States, 260 F.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1958), aff'd, 367 U.S. 203, 81 S. Ct. 1469, 6 L. Ed. 2d 782, reh'g denied, 366 U.S. 978, 81 S. Ct. 1912, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1267 (1961). The Scales Court reasoned:
Post-Scales authority holds the Government is not obligated to give transcripts of the grand jury proceedings to the defense before trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3500; United States v. Gant, 487 F.2d 30 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941, 94 S. Ct. 1946, 40 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1974); United States v. Addington, 471 F.2d 560 (10th Cir. 1973), absent a showing of "particularized need" for the transcripts. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. at 683, 78 S. Ct. at 986. The defendant must show a "particularized need" of information for which the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings should be "lifted discretely and limitedly." Id. at 683, 78 S. Ct. at 986. Troutman contends he was entitled to the complete transcript of the minutes to allow his counsel adequate preparation for trial. That request far exceeds the Procter & Gamble holding that upon the showing of a particularized rather than general need, the minutes should be disclosed in a discrete and limited manner. A defendant is not permitted to probe aimlessly for conjectured error behind a facially valid indictment. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S. Ct. 406, 100 L. Ed. 397 (1956). Even testimony potentially damaging to the defendant is protected by section 3500. United States v. Radetsky, 535 F.2d 556 (10th Cir. 1976). Therefore, the district court properly denied Troutman's pre-trial motion for release of the grand jury minutes.
The issue of whether the district court should have compelled Government witnesses to be interviewed by Troutman is governed by United States v. Pinto, 755 F.2d 150 (10th Cir. 1985). There, this court stated,
A witness in a criminal case has the right to refuse to be interviewed. United States v. Fischel, 5 Cir., 686 F.2d 1082, 1092; Byrnes v. United States, 9 Cir., 327 F.2d 825, 832, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 970, 84 S. Ct. 1652, 12 L. Ed. 2d 739. 'No right of a defendant is violated when a potential witness freely chooses not to talk....' Kines v. Butterworth, 1 Cir. 669 F.2d 6, 9, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 980, 102 S. Ct. 2250 72 L. Ed. 2d 856. However, the prosecution may not interfere with the free choice of a witness to speak with the defense absent justification 'by the clearest and most compelling considerations.' Id. In the case at bar the prosecution did not impermissibly interfere with Morris' choice. United States v. Bittner, 8 Cir., 728 F.2d 1038, 1041-42.
Pinto, 755 F.2d at 152. Pinto is in complete accord with the holding of every circuit that has examined this question. Bittner, 728 F.2d 1038; Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082; United States v. Walton, 602 F.2d 1176 (4th Cir. 1979); United States v. Rich, 580 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1978).
The deposing of Government witnesses is governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a), which allows depositions " [w]henever due to exceptional circumstances it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness be taken and preserved for use at trial...." The Rule does not address pre-trial discovery; it merely authorizes preservation of the testimony of witnesses who might be unavailable at trial. United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793 (3d Cir. 1982); United States v. Adcock, 558 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1977). In its order denying Troutman's motion to compel interviews, the district court expressly found Troutman failed to show that any of the material witnesses from FNB and ITC would be unavailable to testify, which finding was confirmed at trial. The district court committed no error by withholding the grand jury minutes and refusing to compel witness interviews.
Below, Troutman sought to introduce testimony from several firms, not related to the present controversy, that he had never conditioned the award of state business upon their making political contributions and that he "went out of his way" to return any donations solicited by persons in his office and assure the contributors their standing with the State would not be affected by their making or withholding contribution. The district court allowed one witness to testify along that line, but refused further like testimony and required Troutman to submit the remainder by offer of proof as per Fed.R.Evid. 103(b). Troutman asserts more evidence of his past conduct should have been admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(a) (1) and 406, and the court's failure to do so denied Troutman's right to present witnesses on his behalf and to effective assistance of counsel and due process of law.20
The Government points out that additional evidence of past conduct unrelated to the award of the correspondent contract to ITC would have been cumulative. More importantly, neither Rule 404(a) (1) nor Rule 406 covers the evidence Troutman sought to admit. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 404 cite as examples of character traits, "the chastity of the victim under a statute specifying her chastity as an element of the crime of seduction, or the competency of the driver in an action for negligently entrusting a motor vehicle to an incompetent driver." The Committee further observes,
As with all questions of relevancy and method of proof, the district court has broad discretion to admit evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 406. United States v. Neal, 718 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1983). Here, the district court refused further evidence of Troutman's prior conduct after hearing the testimony of one witness and permitting an offer of proof. It ruled the evidence was irrelevant, and we will not disturb that ruling absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. United States v. Nolan, 551 F.2d 266 (10th Cir. 1977). The central question here is the reasonability of the ITC officials' perception that award of the correspondent contract was conditioned upon their making the requested contribution. United States v. Dozier, 672 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Price, 617 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1980). Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's exclusion, as irrelevant, evidence concerning Troutman's conduct in matters unrelated to ITC.
Courts disfavor new trials, United States v. Gleeson, 411 F.2d 1091 (10th Cir. 1969), and exercise great caution in granting them. United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398 (10th Cir. 1977); United States v. Maestas, 523 F.2d 316 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Perea, 458 F.2d 535 (10th Cir. 1972). The motion for a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a plain abuse of discretion. Maestas, 523 F.2d 316.
On review of the district court's denial of Troutman's alternative motion for a judgment of acquittal, we must consider, in a light most favorable to the Government, all direct and circumstantial evidence and the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that evidence. United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1529 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 1657, 90 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1986); United States v. Parrott, 434 F.2d 294, 297 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 979, 91 S. Ct. 1211, 28 L. Ed. 2d 330 (1971). The motion will be denied if "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). The Government's evidence need not disprove every reasonable defense theory. See Hooks, 780 F.2d at 1530. However, the evidence supporting the conviction must be "substantial; that is, it must do more than raise a mere suspicion of guilt." United States v. Ortiz, 445 F.2d 1100, 1103 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 993, 92 S. Ct. 541, 30 L. Ed. 2d 545 (1971).
Under the Hobbs Act, conspiracy to commit extortion may be shown by evidence the defendants acted in a manner that instills in the victim the fear of economic loss if the victim does not meet their extortionate demands and by evidence the defendants conspired to obtain the funds under color of official right. Either the "fear of economic loss" or the "color of official right" showing is sufficient for conviction under the Hobbs Act. United States v. Adcock, 558 F.2d 397 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 921, 98 S. Ct. 395, 54 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1977). Fear is not an element of a violation of the Hobbs Act when funds are obtained under color of official right. United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819, 97 S. Ct. 64, 50 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1976); United States v. Mazzei, 521 F.2d 639 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1014, 96 S. Ct. 446, 46 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1975). The Government contends that review of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution shows Troutman conspired to commit extortion both by means of fear of economic loss and under color of official right.
Regarding color of right, Troutman merely reasserts his position that he acted to protect the integrity of his office. As discussed above, we join the jury and the district court in their rejection of that view. An extortion effort made under color of official right is described as a public official's attempt to obtain money not due him or his office. United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1976). The instant facts fit squarely within that language, and the jury was reasonable in its decision that Troutman wrongfully attempted to obtain money not due him or his office by creating an impression the award of the correspondent contract to ITC was contingent upon ITC's payment of $2,000 for tickets to the Democratic Leadership fund-raiser. Thus, regardless of the strength of Troutman's assertion the showing of fear of economic loss was inadequate, the Government met its burden of demonstrating the contribution was unlawfully solicited under color of official right.
Finally, the authority relied upon by Troutman does not support his motion for a new trial. Rather, the authority underscores that cited by the Government in opposition to Troutman's motion. United States v. Dozier, 672 F.2d 531, 540 (5th Cir. 1982) ((" [E]lected officials are, and have been, on notice that any public officer, elected or otherwise, who makes performance (or non-performance) of an official act contingent upon payment of a fee--whether or not the fee actually is paid or the act actually performed--is guilty of extortion 'under color of official right.' ")); United States v. Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415, 421 (3d Cir. 1979) ("The coercive solicitation of political contributions is within the realm of actions that are illegal under the Hobbs act."); United States v. Williams, 621 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1980) (Absent a showing of fear, a Hobbs Act conviction can be sustained upon a finding that property was unlawfully obtained under color of official right).
In his article, "The Appearance of Impropriety Under Canon 9: A Study of Federal Judicial Process Applied to Lawyers," Professor Kramer points out that where Canons 4 and 5 apply, Canon 9 should not be resorted to. 65 Minn. L. Rev. 243 (1980). He reasons:
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d) states:
DR 7-107(B) (6) states:
18 U.S.C. § 3500 states, in relevant part:
Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 states:
Fed.R.Evid. 404(a) (1) states: