Opinion ID: 447993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Miscellaneous Challenges to Jury Instructions

Text: 22 The defendants argue that David Wellington's status as a federal protected witness justified a certain amount of misrepresentation and deception to protect him and his family. The district court refused to instruct the jury regarding this defense. The defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that a federal protected witness has the right to violate the mail fraud statute to conceal his or her identity. As a result, we conclude that the proposed instruction was merely an embellishment on the defendants' general theory that their actions were not intended to deceive investors. See United States v. Ives, 609 F.2d 930, 934 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 919, 100 S.Ct. 1283, 63 L.Ed.2d 605 (1980). The jury was fully and properly instructed regarding that theory. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the proposed instruction. 23 The defendants also argue that the district court impermissibly enlarged the indictment by instructing the jury as follows: In all eleven counts the Government alleges that the defendants aided and abetted each other. The defendants argue that this misstated the contents of the indictment. In fact, the indictment did allege that the defendants aided and abetted each other. While it is true that the indictment did not charge the defendants with violating the statute governing aiders and abettors, that statute does not create a separate crime. United States v. Kegler, 724 F.2d 190, 200-01 (D.C.Cir.1984). The statute merely provides that aiders and abettors are liable as principals. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a). Accordingly, the district court's instructions did not enlarge the indictment. 6 IV Evidence Relating to David Wellington A. Hearsay Statements 24 The defendants claim that the district court erred by allowing several witnesses to testify regarding out-of-court statements by David Wellington. The defendants contend that the admission of those statements is reversible under the hearsay rules and the confrontation clause. With only one exception, however, the statements are not hearsay. In order to constitute hearsay, a statement must be offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c); see Wellborn, The Definition of Hearsay in the Federal Rules of Evidence, 61 Texas L.Rev. 49 (1982). Most of the alleged hearsay statements are false representations that were made to potential investors. These representations are not hearsay because their probative value is independent of their truth. United States v. Gibson, 690 F.2d 697, 700-02 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046, 103 S.Ct. 1446, 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983). The remainder of the alleged hearsay statements are incidental comments and instructions to employees, the truth of which was not relevant to any issue at trial. 25 The record reveals that only one out-of-court statement by David Wellington was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Charles White, an employee of CCC, testified that Wellington said that he and Utz were friends and that a car had been purchased for Utz. The fact that Utz and David Wellington were friends is well documented in the record. In fact, Utz described his friendship with David Wellington in great detail on direct examination. Utz does not dispute the existence of the car that was allegedly purchased with CCC's funds, but claims that he paid for the car with rental income from an airplane that he owned. White testified that the airplane was actually purchased by Mission Vectors on behalf of CCC. White's testimony thus supports the proposition that the car was purchased by CCC, rather than Utz, even without the hearsay statement. As a result, the hearsay statements were cumulative. See United States v. Miranda-Uriarte, 649 F.2d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir.1981). In light of the overwhelming evidence of other fraudulent acts by Utz and the minimal probative value of the hearsay statements even when standing alone, we conclude that any error committed by the district court was harmless. See United States v. Foster, 711 F.2d 871, 880-81 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1602, 80 L.Ed.2d 132 (1984); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878, 883 (9th Cir.1980). B. Prior Convictions and Bad Acts 26 At trial, the district court allowed the introduction of evidence regarding David Wellington's past. The evidence included David Wellington's past convictions for various fraudulent schemes, his involvement in the federal witness protection program, and his activities as an informer. Both defendants contend that the admission of this evidence constituted reversible error. 27 Utz contends that the prior convictions were inadmissible, citing various cases and rules relating to the use of prior convictions to impeach a witness. Those cases and rules are inapplicable because the convictions were not admitted to impeach David Wellington. Instead, the Government introduced the convictions and the circumstances surrounding the convictions to prove that Utz knew of David Wellington's criminal past. The Government alleged that Utz made representations to lenders and potential investors regarding David Wellington's character. If Utz knew that David Wellington had a history of involvement in fraudulent schemes, those representations were fraudulent. 7 The use of prior convictions for this purpose is proper. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 536 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 982, 97 S.Ct. 497, 50 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976); United States v. Jones, 425 F.2d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 823, 91 S.Ct. 44, 27 L.Ed.2d 51 (1970). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence relating to David Wellington's prior convictions. 28 Mark Wellington contends that the evidence relating to David Wellington's past should have been excluded under Rule 403 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mark Wellington. Wellington argues that the father-son relationship between the Wellingtons created a danger that the jury would hold Mark Wellington accountable for his father's actions. Wellington notes that his father's past was only relevant with respect to Utz and argues that a higher standard for admissibility is therefore appropriate. See United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 945-46 (2d Cir.1980). 29 We review the district court's ruling under Rule 403 for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Winters, 729 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir.1984). Wellington's arguments regarding the transference of culpability from father to son are speculative. The district court was in a position to observe the effects of the admission of the evidence, yet concluded that Rule 403 did not require exclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Longoria, 624 F.2d 66, 68 (9th Cir.) (noting that a district court's decision to admit a prior conviction over an objection under Rule 403 should be given great deference), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 858, 101 S.Ct. 158, 66 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980). In addition, the jury was instructed that David Wellington's past misconduct was only admissible against Utz. The record does not support the conclusion that the district court abused its discretion. V Severance 30 The decision to sever the trials of codefendants rests within the discretion of the district court. United States v. Gonzales, 749 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1984); see Fed.R.Crim.P. 14. The test for deciding whether the district court abused its discretion is whether a joint trial would be so prejudicial that the trial judge could exercise his discretion in only one way. United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856, 101 S.Ct. 154, 66 L.Ed.2d 71 (1980). 31 Utz claims that he was unfairly prejudiced by joinder in six ways. First, he notes that he was not named in many of the allegations in the indictment. This fact is irrelevant because he could be convicted solely on the basis of his knowing participation in the scheme. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 744 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir.1984). 32 Second, Utz notes that the Government introduced evidence relating to Mark Wellington's alleged attempt to avoid arrest by fleeing to Mexico. Utz argues that this was unfairly prejudicial to him because the jury was not instructed that Wellington's flight could not be used against Utz. The jury, however, was instructed to consider only the individual defendant's acts or statements in deciding whether that defendant participated in the scheme. The record does not reveal any occasion on which Utz requested a more specific instruction. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 30. 33 Third, Utz claims that the existence of the check kiting indictment hampered his defense because Mark Wellington was named as a defendant in that indictment. The record reveals no instance in which relevant evidence was excluded because of the check kiting indictment. 34 Fourth, Utz notes that the Wellingtons' bankruptcy petition was still active at the time of trial. The relevance of this fact is unclear. In any event, Utz never asserted the bankruptcy petition as a ground for severance at trial. 35 Fifth, Utz notes that David Wellington's prior convictions were introduced against him. Those convictions would have been admissible against Utz even if the district court had severed the cases. 36 Sixth, Utz notes that an alias used by Mark Wellington in Mexico was introduced at trial. The relevance of this fact is unclear. In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a severance on that ground. 37 In sum, Utz's arguments do not establish an abuse of discretion by the district court. 8 VI Sufficiency of Evidence 38 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and determine whether a 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. 2751, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Arriaga-Segura, 743 F.2d at 1435. Utz claims that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient. The record reveals, however, that the evidence of Utz's guilt was overwhelming. 9 39 Utz raises two arguments in support of his position. First, he claims that the Government produced no evidence showing his involvement in various aspects of the scheme. This fact is irrelevant. It is only necessary that the defendant be a knowing participant in the scheme. See Mitchell, 744 F.2d at 704. The evidence of Utz's participation was overwhelming. Utz was present at the earliest meetings regarding the formation of the real estate venture. A realtor who dealt with David Wellington considered Utz to be a silent partner in the enterprise. Most of the Government's witnesses testified to some type of involvement on Utz's part. In sum, the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Utz was a knowing and active participant in the scheme. 40 Second, Utz claims that the Government failed to show mailings within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341. The Government introduced evidence that the defendants mailed deeds to various investors, that the investors mailed payments to the defendants, and that the defendants mailed letters to the attorneys for some of the investors. All of these mailings were in furtherance of the scheme. See Green, 745 F.2d at 1208. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1341 were satisfied. VII Speedy Trial Act Claims 41 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(c)(1) states: In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an ... indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days ... from the [last] date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending.... Section 3161(h) sets forth various types of excludable delay. Section 3161(h)(8) authorizes a continuance based on the ends of justice, in accordance with specified factors. 42 Utz claims that seventy-six days had elapsed prior to his appearance on December 6, 1982. The district court rejected this claim. Utz does not claim that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard. Accordingly, we review the district court's findings under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Henderson, 746 F.2d 619, 622 (9th Cir.1984). Utz has stated no reasons for concluding that the findings are clearly erroneous. Instead, we conclude that the district court's findings are amply supported by the record. 43 Utz also contends that the district court's decision to grant a continuance under section 3161(h)(8) on December 6, 1982, was improper because the district court failed to state its reasons in the record. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(h)(8)(A). The record reveals, however, that the district court specifically found that the case was complex, which is a proper ground under section 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). In any event, Utz failed to object in a timely fashion. See id. Sec. 3162(a)(2). In sum, Utz's Speedy Trial Act claims are without merit. 10 VIII Juror Questionnaire 44 Prior to voir dire, the district court sent out a questionnaire to prospective jurors. The questionnaire contained two questions relating to the jurors' ability to participate in a lengthy trial. The defendants contend that the use of those questions mandates a reversal. A. The Jury System Improvements Act 45 Juror selection in federal courts is governed by the Jury System Improvements Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1861-1877. The Act mandates the random selection of jurors. The defendants contend that the questionnaire is contrary to that mandate. 46 Although the defendant's contention may have merit, they lack a statutory remedy. The remedies provided under the statute are exclusive. Id. Sec. 1867(e). In order to obtain those remedies, a defendant must file a timely motion containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title. Id. Sec. 1867(d). The defendants failed to file such a statement. Accordingly, the defendants may not invoke the statutory remedies. United States v. Foxworth, 599 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1979); United States v. James, 453 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir.1971). B. Constitutional Grounds
47 The defendants contend that the use of the questionnaire constituted an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power to the court clerk. The record, however, does not reveal that the court clerk was given any authority to select or to exclude jurors. In fact, the record does not even show that the questions were actually used. Accordingly, we reject the defendant's contention under the facts of this case. 11
48 The defendants allude to a violation of their sixth amendment rights, but do not offer a theory to support such a claim. The sixth amendment does not guarantee a randomly selected jury. United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 319 (9th Cir.1983). Accordingly, this contention is without merit. IX Miscellaneous Assignments of Error A. Cross-Examination 49 The defendants contend that the district court erred by limiting the scope of the cross-examination. The sixth amendment guarantees a criminal defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses. Nevertheless, [t]he scope of the cross-examination of a witness is subject to the discretion of the trial court and is reviewable solely for an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Cutler, 676 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir.1982); see Fed.R.Evid. 611(a). The testimony that the defendants sought to obtain on cross-examination was either irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. We conclude that the district court's actions were correct and within its discretion. B. Prosecutorial Vouching 50 It is well settled that a prosecutor may not vouch for the credibility of a witness. See, e.g., United States v. West, 680 F.2d 652, 655 (9th Cir.1982). The defendants claim that the Government vouched for the credibility of five of its witnesses. This is incorrect. The statements at issue were of the general form: Why would [the witness] not tell you the truth? This did not constitute vouching. See United States v. Flake, 746 F.2d 535, 539-41 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 942, 101 S.Ct. 3088, 69 L.Ed.2d 957 (1981).