Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-king-58
Timestamp: 2020-04-10 06:14:43
Document Index: 691375309

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1503', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1510', '§ 1510', '§ 1510', '§ 1512', '§ 1510', '§ 1510', '§ 1512', '§ 1510', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1510', '§ 1503', '§ 1503', '§ 1503', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512']

United States v. King, 762 F.2d 232 | Casetext Search + Citator
However framed, the issue for us to decide is the same: on the facts presented at trial, can the guilty…
Similar arguments have been rejected by other circuit courts of appeal. See United States v. Rovetuso, 768…
Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT, v. JERRY L…
762 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1985)
rejecting attempt to extend section 1512 to "nonmisleading, nonthreatening, nonintimidating attempt to have a person give false information"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Masterpol
Mark J. Mahoney, Buffalo, N.Y. (Diebold, Bermingham, Gorman, Brown Cook, P.C., Buffalo, N.Y., on brief), for defendant-appellant-cross-appellee.
Defendant Jerry L. King appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, entered after a jury trial before John T. Elfvin, Judge, in Buffalo, New York, convicting him of conspiring to possess and distribute counterfeit money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1982). King contends that he should be granted a new trial because the district court erroneously denied him the right to review the transcript of certain testimony before the grand jury that indicted him and improperly refused to grant a continuance to permit him to bring a favorable witness to the trial. The government cross-appeals, challenging an order of Judge Elfvin that vacated the jury's verdict against King on a charge of tampering with a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (1982) on the ground that the facts proven by the government were not within the scope of § 1512. For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment and order of the district court.
At trial, the jury found King guilty on the conspiracy count and the witness tampering count, and acquitted him on the two counts charging him with transfers of counterfeit money. Judge Elfvin vacated the guilty verdict on the witness tampering count, finding that the facts proven by the government, which we discuss in Part II.B. below, did not bring King's actions within § 1512. King was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and one day on the conspiracy count. This appeal and the cross-appeal followed.
A motion for an adjournment of the scheduled start of trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 849-50, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450, 60 S.Ct. 321, 324, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940); United States v. Cicale, 691 F.2d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1082, 103 S.Ct. 1771, 76 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983). To show abuse of that discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's denial of a continuance was arbitrary and substantially impaired his defense. United States v. Bein, 728 F.2d 107, 114 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 135, 83 L.Ed.2d 75 (1984); United States v. Ellenbogen, 365 F.2d 982, 985 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 892, 17 L.Ed.2d 795 (1967).
We are unpersuaded by King's attempt to cast this issue as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his defense. There seems to be no doubt that King would have been able to secure Dennis's presence had he simply requested it in timely fashion. Further, it is possible that had King requested, even at the late date of his continuance motion, that the court expedite the production of Dennis so that he might appear in time for trial, Dennis's presence might have been procured. That King made neither a timely request for Dennis's production nor an eleventh hour request for his production on an expedited basis belies his claim that his fundamental rights were violated.
Nonetheless, the court's ruling was not inappropriate. King had been advised in May and August that Dennis's testimony was exculpatory of King, and King's counsel conceded that Dennis would have been available for consultation if counsel had wished to speak with him. Thus, this was not a case in which King lacked either information as to the contents of the transcript or access to the person who gave the testimony. The district court's denial of the motion for production of the transcript was therefore not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Natale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1171 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 1724, 48 L.Ed.2d 193 (1976) (denial of grand jury testimony upheld where witness had been continually available for interviewing).
Count 4 of the indictment charged that from approximately July 26, 1983, through August 4, 1983, King had, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, "knowingly engage[d] in misleading conduct toward another person" by making false statements to, and intentionally concealing material facts from, one Frank S. Orgovan, Jr., for the purpose of hindering and preventing the disclosure to law enforcement agents of King's participation in the counterfeiting offenses. The jury found King guilty on this count, but the trial court vacated the verdict on the ground that the facts proven did not amount to a violation of § 1512. The government cross-appeals from this decision. We agree with the district court's interpretation.
(A) withhold testimony . . . from an official proceeding; [or]
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense. . .
In an order reported at 597 F.Supp. 1228 (1984), Judge Elfvin vacated the jury's verdict finding King guilty of a violation of § 1512 because the evidence did not indicate that King had misled Orgovan in any way. Rather, "King, simply and flat-out, tried to persuade Orgovan to lie" to mislead the government. Id. at 1231. The court ruled that although the conduct actually proven might amount to an obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (1982), it was not within the ambit of § 1512. This interpretation of § 1512 is supported both by the language of the statute and by its legislative history.
By its terms, § 1512 does not purport to reach all forms of tampering with a witness, but only tampering by specified means, i.e., by use or attempted use of "intimidation" or "physical force" or "threat" or by engaging in "misleading conduct toward another person." The indictment charged that King had engaged in misleading conduct toward Orgovan, but the evidence did not support that charge. The proof was plain that Orgovan was involved in the scheme as early as mid-June; he knowingly received counterfeit money from King on two occasions; he had discussions with King as to the counterfeit nature of the bills; and when he was arrested, he sent word to King of that fact. No rational juror could conclude from the August 2 and 4 conversations — in which King urged Orgovan that the two should stick together, that Orgovan should not implicate King but only Dennis, and that Orgovan's silence would be rewarded financially — that Orgovan was in any way misled. Since the only allegation in the indictment as to the means by which King induced Orgovan to withhold testimony was that King misled Orgovan, and since the evidence failed totally to support any inference that Orgovan was, or even could have been, misled, the conduct proven by the government was not within the terms of § 1512. See United States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288, 1293-95 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Beatty, 587 F.Supp. 1325, 1331-33 (E.D.N.Y. 1984).
The government contends that, notwithstanding the actual language of § 1512, Congress meant for § 1512 to reach conduct that was not misleading to the person at whom it was directed but was intended to mislead the government. The starting point for its argument is that such conduct was previously within the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 1510 (1976), which made unlawful "willful endeavors by means of . . . misrepresentation . . . to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator." See United States v. St. Clair, 552 F.2d 57, 58 (2d Cir.) (" § 1510 is violated whenever an individual induces or attempts to induce another person to make a material misrepresentation to a criminal investigator."), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 909, 97 S.Ct. 2976, 58 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977); id. at 59 ("[S]oliciting misrepresentation by potential witnesses is illegal."); see also legislative history to § 1510, H.R. Rep. No. 658, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, reprinted in 1967 U.S.Code Cong. Ad. News 1760, 1762 ("[T]he actual procurement by a party of another party's misrepresentation or silence to a Federal investigator would be covered even though such procurement was not achieved by any misrepresentation."). The government points out that in enacting § 1512 as part of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (the "Act"), Pub.L. No. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, Congress amended § 1510 to delete references to conduct consisting of "misrepresentation, intimidation, or force or threats thereof," and it argues that this deletion of "misrepresentation," etc., reflected Congress's intention that the deleted portions of former § 1510 be covered by the new § 1512. The government supports its view of Congress's intention by referring to the floor statement of Representative Rodino, Chairman of the House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary, in which, in a section-by-section analysis of the proposed legislation, he characterized the changes in § 1510 as "technical" and stated that the bill "delete[d] language from section 1510 pertaining to informant intimidation and retaliation because the conduct dealt with by that language is covered in new sections 1512 and 1513." 128 Cong.Rec. H8205 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1982). We are unpersuaded.
First, the passage just quoted and relied on by the government refers only to "intimidation and retaliation," not to other forms of witness tampering. This is a thin reed on which to build a case for an interpretation of § 1512 that transforms the words "misleading conduct toward another person . . . to . . . hinder . . . [the government]" into "any conduct leading another person to mislead the government."
More importantly, the original bill that led to the enactment of the Act contained, in addition to the eventually enacted enumeration of specific types of conduct to be reached, a catchall section designed to reach any person who "corruptly, by threats of force, or by any threatening letter of communication, intentionally influences, obstructs, or impedes or attempts to influence, obstruct, or impede the ... enforcement and prosecution of federal law." S. 2420, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., sec. 201(a), § 1512(a)(3), 128 Cong.Rec. S11,439 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 1982). The Senate Judiciary Committee opined that the prevention of obstructions of justice could not be fully carried out by a simple enumeration of the commonly prosecuted obstruction offenses and stated that the residual section was not intended to be limited by the doctrine of ejusdem generis. S.Rep. No. 532, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 18, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. Ad.News 2515, 2524. Thus, the Senate Report stated that the residual section was intended to reach, inter alios, "a person who induces another to remain silent or to give misleading information to a Federal law enforcement officer . . . irrespective of whether he employed deception, intimidation, threat, or force as to the person." Id. (footnote omitted). The residual section, however, was deleted from the Act as finally passed. We agree with the courts in United States v. Lester and United States v. Beatty that the legislative history of § 1512 does not suggest that Congress intended that section, as enacted, to reach modes of conduct other than those there enumerated.
Finally, we find unpersuasive the government's argument that, since King's conduct is punishable neither under § 1510, as amended, nor under § 1503 because there was no pending judicial proceeding at the time he sought to have Orgovan give false information, see United States v. Vesich, 724 F.2d 451, 454 (5th Cir. 1984) (attempt to obstruct a criminal investigation or inquiry before a proceeding has been initiated is not within § 1503); United States v. Fayer, 573 F.2d 741, 745 (2d Cir.) ("Corrupt advice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 must relate to an investigation by the grand jury, not the F.B.I."), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 831, 99 S.Ct. 108, 58 L.Ed.2d 125 (1978), the application of § 1512 according to its terms will allow conduct such as that proven here, i.e., the nonmisleading, nonthreatening, nonintimidating attempt to have a person give false information to the government, to go unpunished. If there is such a lacuna in the legislative scheme, the proper remedy is not for the courts to distort the plain language of § 1512 but for Congress to enact legislation to close the gap.
observing that § 1512(b) should not have been charged because the alleged misleading conduct, outright subornation of perjury, did not involve any deceptive or misleading conduct
In King the defendant was charged and convicted of knowingly engaging in misleading conduct toward another person by making false statements in order to hinder and prevent the disclosure to law enforcement agents of the defendant's participation in counterfeiting.
In King the defendant attempted to convince a witness to lie before a grand jury by telling a story that both the witness and the defendant knew was false.
Summary of this case from United States v. Rodolitz
In King, as in the case before me, no specific date was set for disclosure of trial witnesses or making an application for compulsory process.
Summary of this case from Wilkerson v. Burge
In King, at the outset of a federal court trial, defense counsel moved for a two to three week adjournment of trial, both to pursue certain new leads and to enable defendant's brother to be available to testify at trial.