Opinion ID: 351018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 76-2973 lakeland

Text: 2 In January, 1976, a federal grand jury in Tampa, Florida, returned a twelve-count indictment charging seventeen defendants, for the period from February 1, 1975, to January, 1976, with engaging in the conduct of and conspiring to conduct an interstate auto theft and distribution ring in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2312, 2313, and 2. 3 Before trial, the nine defendants going to trial filed, inter alia, motions for severance alleging that the defendants would be denied a fair trial if they were tried en masse because of their numbers, the possibility of jury confusion and conflicts in their defenses. The motions for severance were denied. 4 At trial in May, 1976, defendant William Becker represented himself. The jury returned guilty verdicts against the nine defendants tried on the conspiracy count, returned various guilty and not guilty verdicts on the remaining substantive counts (two counts were dismissed by the court after the government's case), and a judgment of acquittal was entered by the court for one of the defendants on the conspiracy count. 1 Defendants Becker, Larry Bynum, John Doc Clark, Nuburn Hester, and George Gutridge appealed. 5 We find it unnecessary to set out the facts of 76-2973 in full. They are discussed when relevant to the issues raised by the appellants.
6 Defendant Becker first contends the trial court erred in denying motions and requests for access to legal materials and other tools with which to prepare his defense all in violation of his constitutional rights to adequate representation, a fair trial and due process of law. The record belies Becker's contentions. 7 The court revoked Becker's bond and he was incarcerated during trial. The trial judge upon motion specifically stated he would . . . see that my materials are made available to you. (T. B-236). 8 Although prior to and during trial the defendant filed both handwritten and typewritten motions there is no indication that the hand-written motions were not given the careful consideration given to all other motions by the court. 9 The record further shows the steps taken by the court and the prosecution to assure the appearance of witnesses subpoenaed by Becker, even upon short notice, during the presentation of his defense. (Eg. T. F-156-64). 10 Although denial of access to legal materials can be a valid contention the record does not support this defendant's claim. See Haslam v. United States, 431 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1970); Martinez Rodriquez v. Jimenez, 409 F.Supp. 582 (D.P.R.1976). 11 Becker also suggests the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on his contention that the trial court commented in front of the jury on his right to testify. 12 One of the principal witnesses for the government was Marshall Lineberger. He and Becker had been associates. During Becker's cross-examination of Lineberger, Becker made repeated assertions of fact when he asked questions. The defendant made these assertions of fact five times and the court, upon proper objection, instructed the jury to disregard them. The court admonished Becker to refrain from these assertions. Thereafter, Becker made such statements four more times. The court then advised him as follows: 13 THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Becker, that was a statement on your part or a declaration. You said, 'I don't have any.' 14