Opinion ID: 469800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appellant Richard J. Heppenstall

Text: 38 Heppenstall was convicted of (1) conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846; and (2) possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. He was sentenced to a three-year term of probation and a special parole term of two years.
39 Prior to trial, Heppenstall moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the government had granted him immunity from prosecution. He alleged that in exchange for pleading guilty in 1982 to narcotics charges unrelated to this case, the government made an oral promise not to prosecute him for any prior activity arising from his association with one Arnold Katz--a government witness--unless his actions involved a serious crime such as murder. Upon hearing testimony from three witnesses--two attorneys who represented Heppenstall in 1982, and the prosecutor--the district court denied Heppenstall's motion, reasoning that appellant never received immunity from prosecution. Appellant complains that the court committed reversible error in rejecting his claim that the government had violated an agreement not to prosecute. 40 The existence of a plea bargain agreement is a factual issue, and the district court's determination of the question can be set aside only if clearly erroneous. United States v. Strawser, 739 F.2d 1226, 1229 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 518, 83 L.Ed.2d 407 (1984); United States v. Quigley, 631 F.2d 415, 416 (5th Cir.1980). Heppenstall alleges that the trial judge's finding on the immunity issue is clearly erroneous because (1) the two attorneys who represented him in 1982 allegedly were specific and unequivocal in their testimony; and (2) by contrast, the prosecutor had been unable to remember whether he had promised to exercise his discretion to protect Heppenstall from future prosecution. Therefore, he claims that the district court should have rejected the prosecutor's equivocal testimony that no immunity had been given to Heppenstall. We cannot agree. 41 Although it is true that the prosecutor testified to not recalling whether he had promised to give appellant special consideration in exercising his discretion to prosecute, it is equally certain that he denied having offered guarantees that Heppenstall would never be prosecuted. He also unequivocably denied that any contingency attached to future prosecutions. We are thus ultimately dealing with a credibility problem. This is classically an issue for determination by the finder of fact. See Slavin v. Curry, 690 F.2d 446; 449 (5th Cir.1982). It was up to the district judge to decide who had more credence under the circumstances, taking into consideration all the nuances brought forth by live testimony but which are unavailable to an appeals court. Significantly, no one testified to having told Heppenstall that he would not be prosecuted in the future for drug transactions with Katz, or that he would be prosecuted only if he committed murder. Moreover, no guarantee from immunity except for something like murder was revealed at the proceedings in which Heppenstall pled guilty in 1982. At the time, the government simply recommended that appellant be sentenced to a three-year term of imprisonment and agreed to dismiss a count of the indictment. In view of the foregoing, we cannot say that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that the prosecutor never promised appellant immunity from prosecution.
42 Along with other codefendants, appellant was charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. At trial, the district court followed United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, 101 S.Ct. 365, 66 L.Ed.2d 501 (1981), and conditionally admitted against Heppenstall and others, testimony of out-of-court statements by coconspirators Frappier, Mining, Tindall, and Katz. These statements related only to the conspiracy to import marijuana, and failed to mention Heppenstall. At the close of the government's case, the district court noting the absence of evidence to link appellant to the importation scheme, directed a verdict of acquittal for Heppenstall as to the importation conspiracy. Upon making the United States v. Petrozziello 5 ruling at the close of the evidence, the district court admitted the coconspirators' statements, but failed to instruct the jury not to consider said statements against Heppenstall. On appeal, Heppenstall urges (1) that the statements were inadmissible hearsay; and, as they had been conditionally admitted under Ciampaglia, (2) that the district court committed reversible error in failing to instruct jurors not to consider the statements against him. 43 We agree with appellant that the statements were hearsay as to Heppenstall and therefore inadmissible against him, see United States v. Palow, 777 F.2d 52, 56-57 (1st Cir.1985). We also are of the opinion that it would have been better practice to instruct the jury not to consider the statements. However, we disagree that reversal is justified. For one thing, the coconspirators' statements referred to the importation conspiracy and were devoid, as noted by Heppenstall, of references to him. Also, the district court instructed that none of the defendants had been charged in all counts and that, accordingly, the jury would have to go through the evidence piece by piece and consider separately each defendant and each count in which that defendant is charged. It is likely that in evaluating the coconspirators' statements the jury noticed (1) the total absence of references to appellant; and (2) that the statements referred exclusively to a count inapplicable to Heppenstall. Thus, there is little reason to believe that jurors would have considered said statements in determining appellant's guilt. More importantly, however, there was independent evidence linking appellant to the counts as to which he was convicted. Therefore, even though the district court should have instructed the jury not to consider the coconspirators statements against appellant, we are satisfied that this omission is harmless, and does not justify reversal. 6 Heppenstall's conviction should stand. 44 Affirmed.