Opinion ID: 372981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ronald Petersen :

Text: 44 Ronnie Adams testified that he first met Ron Petersen at Petersen's home near San Diego, California in the spring of 1977. During this first meeting, there was a discussion concerning a stolen Granada that was supposed to be taken to Petersen for transportation to one of Petersen's friends in Mexico. (R., Vol. XVII, pp. 1302, 1303). Adams also testified that at his second meeting with Petersen, which occurred near Rancho, California, Clarence Morrison, Chuck Shults, Jimmy Adams, Ronnie Petersen and Ronnie Adams discussed plans to have Petersen find the group a garage in which to alter vehicles. (R., Vol. XVII, p. 1304). Jimmy Adams confirmed the existence of this meeting. (R., Vol. XV, p. 1021). 45 Significant also, is Ronnie Adams' testimony and identification concerning a stolen vehicle which was subsequently taken to Ron Petersen's house. The truck was stolen in Anaheim, California, by Jim Balloue, taken to One-a-Day paint shop and painted. Thereafter, the vehicle was transported to Ronald Petersen's home. It was subsequently confiscated by the California Highway Patrol. (R., Vol. XIII, pp. 765-780; R., Vol. XVII, pp. 1315, 1316; R., Vol. XVI, pp. 1175, 1176). There was also testimony, although not specifically linked with the conspiracy, that Petersen asked Clarence Morrison and Ronnie Adams to re-stamp the identification numbers on a stolen boat that was at Petersen's residence during Ronnie Adams' first visit there. (R., Vol. XVII, p. 1303). 46 Petersen's father, Keith Petersen, testified that he purchased a 1974 GMC pickup truck from his son. Mr. Petersen picked up the GMC truck in California and drove it back to Washington. Subsequently, the '74 GMC pickup truck was sold to Don Campanoli. (R., Vol. VIII, pp. 178, 179, 236, 237). The vehicle was later determined by the Washington State Patrol to have been stolen and the vehicle identification numbers altered. (R., Vol. X, pp. 388-392). 47 Keith Petersen also purchased a second truck from his son for $5,500.00. (R., Vol. VIII, pp. 239-240). The second vehicle was brought to the father's residence in Washington from California by one of Ronnie Petersen's friends, Danny. (R., Vol. VIII, pp. 244, 245). When Keith Petersen took the second truck down to have it licensed he was informed by the Washington State Patrol that the truck would have to be impounded. (R., Vol. VIII, p. 249). The vehicle identification numbers on the truck had been ground off and restamped. (R., Vol. X, pp. 382-389). 48 While the direct evidence of Petersen's involvement is not overwhelming, the circumstantial evidence is such that the Jury could have linked Petersen to the conspiracy. J. Aaron Keith Stevens : 49 The Government presented its case against Aaron Keith Stevens primarily through the testimony of two California Highway Patrol officers and that of Jimmy Adams and Ronnie Adams. 50 The first witness, Emmitt Ryan, testified that he was employed by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles, California, as a vehicle theft inspector. Ryan conducted a surveillance of the One-a-Day paint shop in Anaheim, California. During the course of the surveillance, Ryan took covert photographs of a brown and white Ford Supercab truck. These photographs were admitted in evidence. Ryan identified Clarence Morrison, Judy Morrison, and Aaron Keith Stevens as occupants of the vehicle. (R., Vol. XII, pp. 729-744). 51 Kenneth J. Slee testified that he was also employed by the California Highway Patrol as a vehicle theft investigator in Los Angeles, California. Slee, too, was involved in the surveillance of the One-a-Day paint shop. During the course of the surveillance, he observed the brown and white Ford Supercab truck depicted in the photographs taken by Emmitt Ryan, in which Aaron Stevens was identified as an occupant. Slee testified that this vehicle was later seized on a public street in front of 436 Willow Way Lane, Aaron Stevens' residence. Following the seizure, Slee recovered a Texas registration from the vehicle and it was determined the VIN numbers on the truck did not match those assigned to a Supercab model by the manufacturer. Simultaneous with this seizure, a stolen motor home was recovered at the same address ostensibly registered to Clarence Morrison. (R., Vol. XVI, pp. 1168-1172; R., Vol. XVII, pp. 1226-1229). 52 Jimmy Adams testified that Stevens had a key to the Orangethorpe garage where the alteration of some vehicles occurred. All of those who had keys to the garage helped in the operations at the garage. Jimmy Adams saw Stevens at the garage approximately ten to fifteen times. In mid-1977, Jimmy Adams observed Stevens enter the garage and state that Clarence Morrison offered him some money to do a rail job on it (a Ford pickup in the garage), but he said he didn't have time to do it, and me and Ronnie done it. (R., Vol. XV, p. 1044). On other occasions, Stevens assisted in other work, or would simply be looking for Morrison. None of the vehicles in the garage were legitimately purchased. (R., Vol. XV, pp. 1037, 1038, 1043, 1044, 1049-1055). 53 Ronnie Adams, an immunized co-conspirator, stated that Mr. Stevens was at our garage on Orangethorpe on numerous occasions, and that on two of these, Stevens was present while (we) was grinding the numbers off of a vehicle. (R., Vol. XVII, pp. 1290-1291). Adams testified that Stevens knew what was going on at the Orangethorpe garage and was one of several persons who had a key to the garage. On one occasion, he observed Stevens painting a truck at the garage. The truck was not identified as stolen; however, there was no evidence offered to the effect that the truck was not stolen. (R., Vol. XVII, pp. 1290-1292; R., Vol. XVIII, pp. 1404-1407). On another occasion, a stolen motor home was left at Aaron Stevens' house. (R., Vol. VII, pp. 88-98; R., Vol. XVII, p. 1309). 54 We believe that the evidence presented was sufficient to tie Stevens to the conspiracy. He possessed a key to the Orangethorpe garage and frequented it on numerous occasions. On two of the occasions, he was present while vehicle identification numbers were ground off vehicle frames and restamped. Ronnie Adams and Stevens discussed the operations of the garage and (he) knew all the time of the group's activities concerning illegal vehicles. This evidence, combined with that of the two California Highway Patrol officers, is sufficient to tie Stevens to the conspiracy and sustain the Jury's verdict of guilty. K. Joe Wilson : 55 With regard to Joe Wilson's involvement, Jimmy Adams testified that Wilson's salvage yard Wichita Auto Salvage was one of the places in which frame rails, vehicle identification numbers, and other parts were taken from wrecked cars so that they could be used in the alteration of recently stolen vehicles. (R., Vol. XV, p. 1024). As to specific instances, he testified that in the summer of 1976, Clarence Morrison, Ronnie Adams, and he went to Wilson's junk yard in order to obtain identification numbers from several vehicles. The frame rails were taken out of the vehicles, vehicle identification number plates removed, and the remaining parts scattered around the yard so the vehicles could not be identified. Exhibits 15-M and 15-O are pictures similar to one of the vehicles which was cut up at the time. The VIN plate on that particular vehicle was popped by Clarence Morrison. Ronnie Adams and Morrison directed Jimmy to get a winch truck from Wilson in order to scatter the parts around the yard. After discussion with Jimmy, Wilson sent someone down with the truck to assist in scattering the parts. (R., Vol. XV, pp. 1023-1027). Jimmy Adams positively identified Wilson. (R., Vol. XV, p. 1016). 56 Sandra Adams, Jimmy's wife, testified that she did not know Joe Wilson but that she had heard the name and had heard Clarence Morrison and her husband on one occasion discussing their plans to pick some vehicles up because Joe Wilson wanted them out at his yard. (R., Vol. XVI, p. 1159). 57 Ronnie Adams also testified concerning his involvement with Joe Wilson. Ronnie stated that Wilson was the owner, or part owner, of a wrecking yard in Wichita Falls, Texas, where he had cut up several vehicles so as to obtain the frame rail and VIN plates. At Wilson's yard, he was working under the direction of Clarence Morrison. Although he did not see money exchange hands between Wilson and others, he was told by Clarence Morrison that Morrison had paid Wilson $750 for the frame rail and VIN plate of a truck. Later, Ronnie stated that Clarence Morrison told him Wilson's prices for VIN, rail and title were more than the prices charged by Joel Mitchell at his wrecking yard. Mitchell normally charged $500 for vehicles manufactured up to the year 1973 and $750 for those vehicles manufactured in 1973 and thereafter. As an example of the difference in prices, he stated that Clarence Morrison paid Joe Wilson $900 for the frame rail and title to a 1974 Chevrolet truck. (R., Vol. XVII, pp. 1285-1288, 1327-1328; R., Vol. XVIII, pp. 1422-1426). 58 Kenneth Henson, of the Motor Vehicle Theft Service of the Texas Department of Public Safety, testified concerning his three visits to Wilson's salvage yard in Wichita Falls, Texas. On June 8th, 1977, he visited the salvage yard where he took photos of the cab of a Ford pickup, establishing that the identification numbers on the cab had been removed. He also took a photo of both the rear and front end assembly of the truck. He testified that his inspection of the vehicle showed that all identification numbers had been removed. The photos taken by Henson were Exhibits 15-O and 15-M, the same photos which Jimmy Adams testified to, displaying a truck similar to the truck which he, Ronnie and Clarence Morrison removed the identification numbers from. Exhibit 15-N was introduced through Henson's testimony as a federal safety sticker containing the identification number of the truck which was removed from its cab. Henson positively identified Wilson in the courtroom. (R., Vol. XIV, pp. 848-859; R., Vol. XV, p. 1025). 59 The evidence was more than adequate to support the Jury's determination that Wilson was a participant in the conspiracy and had knowledge of its objects interstate transportation of stolen vehicles. Single versus Multiple Conspiracies 60 As indicated earlier, the indictment charged a single conspiracy in a single count. Twenty-four individual defendants were named, and twenty-five overt acts were specified. At trial, the Government sought to establish that all of the defendants, and certain unnamed individuals, conspired to transport in interstate or foreign commerce, motor vehicles, knowing the same to have been stolen. Appellants contend, in general, that while their convictions were obtained on the theory that all defendants were members of the single conspiracy, the proof, in fact, disclosed multiple conspiracies, thus resulting in a variance, substantially prejudicing their rights and requiring reversal under the authority of Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). 61 Appellants' concerns, of course, center around the keystone of our criminal justice system that (g)uilt with us remains individual and personal, even as respects conspiracies. It is not a matter of mass application. Id. at 772, 66 S.Ct. at 1252. While the issue presented is not unique, it is, nevertheless, always an area of concern where numerous defendants, multiple transactions, and various degrees of participation are found in a single case. See: United States v. Butler, 494 F.2d 1246 (10th Cir. 1974). Due to the continuing importance of this concept, we deem it important to review many of the traditional legal precepts applied by the courts relating to concerted criminal activity. 62 Our starting point is the seminal case of Kotteakos v. United States, supra. The facts of Kotteakos are critical to an understanding of its holding. In that case, the indictment charged a single conspiracy. The Government's evidence, however, established the existence of eight separate conspiracies with only one common element. That common element was the participation of one Simon Brown in each of the conspiracies. Although each of the conspiracies had similar illegal objects, i. e., obtaining government loans by fraudulent representations, none of the participants, other than Brown, had any knowledge of, nor did they aid in, or profit from the other conspiracies. 63 By reason of the existence of this unique factual situation, the Court drew an analogy to that of a wheel. Thus, Brown constituted the hub while each of the eight separate conspiracies were but spokes of the wheel. Inasmuch as the Government failed to prove any connection between the independent conspiracies, notwithstanding that all dealt with Brown as their agent, the rim of the wheel to enclose the spokes was not complete and the existence of a single conspiracy was not established. 64 Recognizing the potential for prejudice involved in trying several defendants together where proof of a single conspiracy is lacking, Kotteakos imposed a prophylactic rule requiring, upon proof of multiple conspiracies, reversal where an individual defendant's substantial rights have been affected. In so doing, the Court sought to avoid the possibility of transfer of guilt from members of one conspiracy to members of another, observing that each individual defendant has the right not to be tried En masse for the conglomeration of distinct and separate offenses committed by others. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. at 775, 66 S.Ct. at 1253. 65 The Court further refined and somewhat limited the impact of Kotteakos when it rendered Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947). In Blumenthal, the indictment charged a single conspiracy to sell whiskey at prices above the ceiling set by the Office of Price Administration. The owner of the whiskey devised an intricate system, using a series of middlemen, whereby he sought to conceal the true price of the whiskey sold. At trial, evidence was adduced to show that some of the middlemen had no contact with each other and did not know the identity of the owner, or other middlemen. Nevertheless, because of the functions each performed, the Supreme Court concluded that in every practical sense the unique facts of this case reveal a single conspiracy of which the several agreements were essential and integral steps. Id. at 559, 68 S.Ct. at 257. Thus, the Court adopted the concept of the chain conspiracy. 66 In United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 (1979), the Court reviewed the chain conspiracy concept and its limits: 67 The essential element of a chain conspiracy allowing persons unknown to each other and never before in contact to be jointly prosecuted as co-conspirators is interdependence. The scheme which is the object of the conspiracy must depend on the successful operation of each link in the chain. 'An individual associating himself with a chain conspiracy knows that it has a scope and that for its success it requires an organization wider than may be disclosed by his personal participation'. United States v. Agueci, 310 F.2d 817, 827 (2nd Cir. 1962) Cert. denied, 372 U.S. 959 (, 83 S.Ct. 1013, 10 L.Ed.2d 11) . . . . (1963). 'Thus, in a chain conspiracy prosecution, the requisite element knowledge of the existence of remote links may be inferred solely from the nature of the enterprise.' United States v. Perez, supra, 489 F.2d (51) at 59, note 10. 24 68 The rationale of Blumenthal applies only insofar as the alleged agreement has 'a common end or single unified purpose'. United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 170-171 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Lloyd, 425 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1970). Generally, where the government has shown that a number of otherwise diverse activities were performed to achieve a single goal, courts have been willing to find a single conspiracy. 25 This 'common objective' test has most often been used to connect the many facets of drug importation and distribution schemes. 26 The rationale falls apart, however, where the remote members of the alleged conspiracy are not truly interdependent or where the various activities sought to be tied together cannot reasonably be said to constitute a unified scheme. (Emphasis supplied). 69 (Footnotes omitted). 70 571 F.2d at 901. 71 In 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), we stated: 72 The fact that a number of separate transactions may have been involved . . . does not establish the existence of a number of separate conspiracies. The evidence adduced at trial revealed that over a period of two months, appellants and others carried out a single scheme to obtain grain fraudulently . . . The scheme was accomplished through a series of similar transactions, each of which was one design and each of which was part of one basic and overriding plan. The separate grain transactions can reasonably be considered as the operations of a going concern, understood by all the participants to be so, rather than as separate transactions or groups of transactions . . . 73 Some of the participants remained with the enterprise from its inception until it was brought to an end, and others joined or left the scheme as it went along. The participation of each overlapped with the participation of others, however, and this overlap (which was) among the individuals, combined with the repeated nature of the operation which the scheme employed, are facts from which the jury could infer that appellants knew they were participating in a larger ongoing conspiracy . . . . It is not necessary, of course, that each member in a conspiracy be acquainted with the others, or have knowledge of all of the details of the plan. 74 581 F.2d at 1382. 75 United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330 (10th Cir. 1979) dealt with the precise issue at hand in a case involving a chain conspiracy. We there stated: 76 Where large quantities of narcotics are being distributed, each major buyer may be presumed to know that he is part of a wide-ranging venture, the success of which depends on performance by others whose identity he may not even know. United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011, 1022 (10th Cir.). We are satisfied that the evidence here shows a common design to acquire and distribute heroin and cocaine, Id., at 1022, and that it was permissible to link the appellants with Thompson and Anderson. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a single conspiracy charge 11 was a question for the jury. (Emphasis supplied). (Footnote omitted). 77 594 F.2d at 1340. 78 We have carefully reviewed the record in this matter and we have summarized much of the evidence presented by the Government as it relates to the individual Appellants. This evidence, combined with the other evidence presented by the Government, convinces us that the Government proved that all Appellants engaged in a number of diverse activities performed to achieve a single goal. In our view, each Appellant inferentially, if not actually, knew that the ultimate object of the conspiracy depended on the successful operation of each link in the chain. The links in this conspiracy were clearly established and welded together in order to achieve a single goal that of theft and interstate transportation of motor vehicles. Thus, we hold that the Government's proof established a single conspiracy. 79 The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule 80 Appellants Balloue, Carlson, Dixon, Igo, Mitchell, and Petersen contend that there was insufficient independent evidence introduced by the Government to prove the existence of a conspiracy as a condition precedent to permitting the Jury to consider the hearsay statements of other co-conspirators. Both the Government and the complaining Appellants contend that our determination of this issue is controlled by United States v. Andrews, supra. 81 In Andrews, we considered the effect of the Federal Rules of Evidence on our rule then in effect which allowed the judge and jury to share the responsibility for determining whether a statement made by one member of a conspiracy, during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy, may be used against other members of that conspiracy. Following the rule laid down in United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977), we held, in Andrews, that such statements could be admitted, at the close of all evidence and prior to submission of the case to the jury, only if the trial judge determines that it is more likely than not that the conspiracy existed, that the declarant and the defendant against whom the conspirator's statement is offered were members of that conspiracy, and that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. In adopting the more likely than not, or preponderance of the evidence, standard applicable at this stage of the trial, we modified our prior rule in view of the impact of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Our prior rule required only that the trial judge initially determine whether there was Prima facie independent evidence establishing proof of the elements enumerated above; if so, the judge was then to submit these matters to the jury for its determination, in deliberations. The jury was instructed that it must determine whether or not the Government established the three elements beyond a reasonable doubt before considering the co-conspirator hearsay statements. We recognized in Andrews that the new rules thus placed greater responsibility on the trial judge in determining the quantum of proof of the essential elements aforesaid. 82 Initially, we deem it important to determine whether we should apply our rule laid down in United States v. Andrews, supra, retroactively, as the Government and Appellants would apparently have us do. In Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), the Supreme Court exhaustively discussed the doctrine of retroactivity, referring to both civil and criminal cases. In particular, the Court stated: 83 In our cases dealing with the nonretroactivity question, we have generally considered three separate factors. First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, . . . or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, . . . Second, it has been stressed that we must . . . weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation. Linkletter v. Walker, supra, (381 U.S. 618) at 629 (, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601.) Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for (w)here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the 'injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity. 84 Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. at 106-107, 92 S.Ct. at 355. 85 Applying the first prong of this tripartite test, we observe that our decision in Andrews applying the preponderance test to the quantum of proof necessary for the admission in evidence of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement modified previous decisions of this Court to confirm Congress' mandate expressed in its passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Prior to Andrews, responsibility for determining the admissibility of such statements, as a preliminary matter, was that of the trial judge. The hearsay statements were admissible if the court concluded that the government had introduced Prima facie independent evidence showing the existence of the conspiracy; that the defendant against whom it was offered and the declarant were members thereof; and that the statement was made in the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The ultimate determination of admissibility and use, however, was that of the jury. See: United States v. Montgomery, 582 F.2d 514 (10th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075, 99 S.Ct. 850, 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979); United States v. Gutierrez, 576 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 954, 99 S.Ct. 351, 58 L.Ed.2d 345 (1978); United States v. Lemon, 497 F.2d 854 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. Pennett, 496 F.2d 293 (10th Cir. 1974). The changes made by Congress in this area, raised new issues which we believe were subsequently resolved by our Andrews decision, which established new principles of law. 86 The second prong of Chevron Oil requires us to determine whether prospective application will further the purposes of and the interests protected by our decision in Andrews. We have carefully weighed our decision. In our view, Andrews establishes a preferable manner in which to insulate a defendant from the danger of prejudice should the jury rely upon co-conspirators' statements which should not be attributed to him. Nevertheless, this danger for prejudice, in view of the actual precaution exercised in applying our prior rule, is not such as to require retroactivity. Our prior rule vested the initial decision with the trial court based upon a showing of Prima facie independent evidence. It fully permitted defendants to strenuously argue to the jury, prior to the court's submission of the case, that the statements should not be attributed to them. This, we believe, provided adequate protection. Moreover, our decision in Andrews was not based on constitutional grounds; rather it was premised on the proposition that the recently adopted Federal Rules of Evidence altered the procedural requirements in this area. 87 Finally, we consider whether retroactive application of our decision in Andrews will produce substantial inequitable results in this case. This, of course, is tied to our discussion under the second prong of the test. Basically, our view is that the prior procedures sufficiently protected defendants from the dangers inherent in the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements. The retroactive application of Andrews, while perhaps beneficial to the Defendants in this case, is not crucial to our holding. We also observe that the issues presented here concerning retroactivity were not briefed on appeal. 88 In sum, we hold that our opinion in United States v. Andrews, supra, should be applied prospectively only. Our decision in this regard accords with the views of other Circuits. See: United States v. Mackedon, 562 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1977); United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1978); and United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc). 89 We have carefully reviewed the evidence as to each complaining Appellant in regard to this issue. We observe that in the instant case the District Court employed the test previously adhered to in this Circuit. 90 Following the presentation of the Government's case in chief, the Trial Judge ruled that the Government had presented sufficient evidence, independent of the hearsay statements, to support a finding by the Jury as to each Defendant concerning the existence of the requisite elements. 91 Appellant Dixon contends that the District Judge committed prejudicial error at this juncture of the proceedings by making his finding of preliminary fact in the presence of the Jury. We do not agree. It is our view that the technique employed by the Court in this case was not prejudicial or clear error. Although the Court did make findings of preliminary fact in the presence of the Jury, the Court emphasized that the Jury alone was to make the ultimate decision of whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence introduced, independent of the acts and statements of the alleged co-conspirators, proved the existence of the necessary elements. He instructed the Jurors that they may, but (are) most emphatically . . . not required to consider the acts and statements of the person made outside the presence of the other alleged co-conspirators stemming from the case. (R., Vol. XX, pp. 633-635). Significantly, no objection to the trial court's procedure was lodged at trial. 92 We have also considered the Court's instructions to the Jury. It is significant to note that the District Court, following the rule previously adhered to in this Circuit, instructed that it was within the sole province of the Jury to determine whether the Government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt by independent evidence, that the conspiracy charged existed; that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy; and that the statements and acts were knowingly made and committed during the continuance of the conspiracy and in furtherance of some object or purpose thereof. The District Court properly complied with the rules set forth in United States v. Montgomery, supra; United States v. Gutierrez, supra; United States v. Lemon, supra ; and United States v. Pennett, supra. 93 Our review of the record as to each of the complaining Appellants convinces us that the District Court properly found, in its preliminary ruling on the admissibility of the hearsay evidence, that there was enough evidence presented by the Government, independent of the hearsay statements, to link each of the Defendants to the conspiracy, thereby allowing the Jury to properly determine the issue of whether that hearsay testimony should be considered against the Defendants involved. 94 We have held that the rule adopted in United States v. Andrews, supra, interpretive of the mandates of the new Federal Rules of Evidence, is not to be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the District Court did not err as to any of the complaining Appellants on this point. Even so, we believe that the practical difficulties involving the application of our standard adopted in United States v. Andrews, supra, require further discourse. 95 As previously observed, Andrews established a new test for determining when a statement of a co-conspirator is admissible against a defendant under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which removes statements made by a co-conspirator of a party opponent during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy from the operation of the hearsay rule. Our Andrews holding was simply that a district court judge, under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, must determine, prior to admission of the hearsay statement, as a factual matter, that the Government has shown by independent evidence that it is more likely than not that (1) the conspiracy existed; (2) the declarant and the defendant against whom the conspirator's statement is offered were members of the conspiracy; and (3) the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy. We did not then elect to suggest a procedure outlining how this determination could be made. 96 The recurring nature of the issues presented herein have been forcibly impressed upon us. We have carefully considered the literature and opinions on this subject and recommend to the district courts the En Banc decision in United States v. James, supra. Exercising its supervisory power over the district courts, the James Court adopted a series of rules designed to control the issues surrounding the admissibility of hearsay statements by co-conspirators. 97 First, the Court ruled, as did we in Andrews, that Rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the judge alone to make the determination as to admissibility of hearsay co-conspirator statements. Second, because of the Court's conclusion that the district court's threshold determination of admissibility is normally to be made during the presentation of the government's case in chief and before the evidence is heard by the jury (Id. at p. 581), a substantial independent evidence rule was applied, 1 rather than one requiring, At the initial stages of the proceedings, a preponderance of the evidence. Third, the Court determined that it is preferable, whenever possible, to require the Government to first introduce independent proof of the conspiracy and, subsequent thereto, to establish the connection of the defendant with the conspiracy before admitting hearsay declarations of co-conspirators. However, it was recognized that in certain instances where it is not reasonably practicable to require the showing to be made before admitting the evidence, the court may admit the statements subject to being connected up. Id. at 582. Fourth, although allowing the hearsay declarations to be admitted following or during the Government's case in chief upon a showing of substantial, independent evidence the Court required that (r)egardless of whether the proof has been made in the preferred order, or the coconspirator's statement has been admitted subject to later connection, on appropriate motion at the conclusion of all the evidence the (district) court must determine as a factual matter whether the prosecution has shown by a Preponderance of the evidence independent of the statement itself (1) that a conspiracy existed, (2) that the coconspirator and the defendant against whom the coconspirator's statement is offered were members of the conspiracy, and (3) that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. (Emphasis supplied). Id. at 582. 2 98 Should the district court conclude, at this stage of the proceedings, that the prosecution has not borne its burden of proof on these issues, the statement is not admissible in evidence. Thus, the court must then decide whether the erroneous admission can be cured by a limiting or cautionary instruction or whether a mistrial is required. 99 We are of the view that this procedure presents a workable solution to a difficult problem. It draws a delicate line between allowing the Government sufficient leeway to properly present its case while at the same time preventing the inherent danger of prejudice to a defendant which would result should a jury consider hearsay statements which lack adequate guarantees of trustworthiness. 100 Applying the standards announced in United States v. Andrews, supra, we have carefully searched the record as to each of the complaining Defendants. Even though we hold that Andrews is not to be applied retroactively, our assessment of the evidence presented in this case is such as to lead us to conclude that there was a preponderance of independent evidence that the conspiracy existed, that each of the Appellants was a member of that conspiracy, and that the statements offered against them were in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, even under our Andrews standard, we must uphold the admissibility of such statements. The Motions for Severance 101 Appellants Balloue, Carlson, Igo, Leonhardt, Malone, Miller, Dee Mitchell and Joel Mitchell all contend that the District Court abused its discretion in failing to grant their motions for relief from prejudicial joinder. We do not agree. 102 It is axiomatic that defendants may be charged jointly in the same indictment where they are alleged to have participated in the same act or series of transactions. Rule 8(b), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C. Defendants charged jointly in such indictments are not entitled to separate trials as a matter of right. Bailey v. United States, 410 F.2d 1209 (10th Cir. 1969) Cert. denied sub nom., Freeman v. United States, 396 U.S. 933, 90 S.Ct. 276, 24 L.Ed.2d 232 (1969). If prejudice either to the Government or a particular defendant is shown by the joinder, the court may, in its discretion, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Rule 14, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C. In determining the merits of a motion for severance, the trial court must weigh the prejudice to a particular defendant caused by joinder against the obviously important considerations of economy and expedition in judicial administration. United States v. Walton, 552 F.2d 1354 (10th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 431 U.S. 959, 97 S.Ct. 2685, 53 L.Ed.2d 277 (1977). Inasmuch as severance is a matter of discretion and not of right, the defendant must bear a heavy burden of showing real prejudice to his case. United States v. Parnell, supra; United States v. Ready, 574 F.2d 1009 (10th Cir. 1978). A decision to deny separate trials under Rule 14 will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. United States v. Eaton, 485 F.2d 102 (10th Cir. 1973). The unsavory reputation of one's co-defendants is not, per se, a ground for severance of defendants for trial . . . To establish abuse of discretion more is required than that separate trials might have offered a better chance for acquittal of one or more of the accused. United States v. Knowles, 572 F.2d 267 (10th Cir. 1978). Rather, it must be shown that the joinder of either defendants or offenses causes actual or threatened deprivation to an individual's right to fair trial. United States v. Butler, supra. Of course, a trial court has a continuing duty to insure that prejudice does not occur, and if it does, to sever defendants or offenses. Schaffer v. United States, 362 U.S. 511, 80 S.Ct. 945, 4 L.Ed.2d 921 (1960). 103 We were faced with arguments similar to those presented in United States v. Beathune, 527 F.2d 696 (10th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied 425 U.S. 996, 96 S.Ct. 211, 48 L.Ed.2d 821 (1976). In Beathune we stated: 104 Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) provides that two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. The charge in the instant indictment, as well as the Government's evidence in support of such charge, indicated that Rhodes and Beathune were acting hand-in-glove in an interstate stolen car ring, with Rhodes, as well as others, driving the stolen vehicles cross-country in interstate commerce and selling them to Beathune, who then sold the cars to purchasers in the Metropolitan Denver area. Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 14 a motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and in the instant case we find no abuse of discretion. 105 United States v. Beathune, supra, at 698-699. 106 Similarly, in the instant case, we find no abuse of discretion. While the evidence as to each complaining Appellant's involvement varies, the record supports the conclusion that they were all members of one conspiracy and, as such, the acts of one were attributable to the others. In United States v. Riebold, 557 F.2d 697 (10th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 860, 98 S.Ct. 186, 54 L.Ed.2d 133 (1977), we stated that (m)utual participation of defendants in an offense or series of offenses is considered a logical, basic ground for refusing to grant a motion to sever. We observe that the District Court, in the instant case, severed the substantive offenses from the conspiracy charge prior to trial. Moreover, the Court was extremely cognizant of the problems presented in multi-defendant trials and so instructed the Jury throughout the case until its conclusion. In essence, we hold that the District Court fulfilled its continuing duty to assure that prejudice would not occur. 107 We observe that had this case been tried under the standards announced in United States v. Andrews, supra, the reasons for severance would not have been as strong inasmuch as the Jury would not have been required to determine the admissibility of co-conspirator's statements as to each individual Defendant. 108 Appellant Igo advances an interesting argument in support of his contention that the District Court erred in denying his motion for severance. He argues, in essence, that he was placed in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation by the Jury's request, at the end of the second day of deliberation, for the transcript of Ronald Adams' testimony about (Igo). (Brief of Appellant Igo at p. 21). The requested testimony concerning Igo's participation in the conspiracy also contained damaging references to another Defendant in the case Richard Taylor. Following the request of the Jury, the Court suggested to counsel that they discuss the request and attempt to reach a decision. (R., Vol. XXVI, pp. 5-6). Such a decision was subsequently reached among interested counsel to the effect that the Jury not be allowed to review the transcript. Following this decision, the Court advised counsel on the record that he would be informing the Jury that counsel would prefer that the transcript not be given . . . (and that) . . . there would be so much of the testimony (which) would have to be excised that we feel it would not be a meaningful thing to do, and might be an unfair emphasis. (R., Vol. XXVII, p. 2). Counsel for Appellant Igo then stated I would be most pleased with that. The situation, I don't think, can be handled in any other way. (R., Vol. XXVII, p. 2). All counsel agreed and the Jury was so instructed. (R., Vol. XXVII, pp. 2-3). 109 In view of these circumstances, we hold that the District Court did not commit error in refusing to sever, Sua sponte, Igo from the trial of the remaining Defendants. In any event, a party may not sit idly by at trial watching error being committed, and complain for the first time on appeal. United States v. Hubbard, supra, at p. 142. Miscellaneous Arguments 110 Appellant Joe Wilson contends the District Court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in Texas as a result of one or more searches of his place of business, Wichita Auto Salvage. The Government sought to justify the searches on the grounds that they were made pursuant to Texas statutory authority and with the consent of those in charge of the salvage yard. Following the testimony of several witnesses, at the motion to suppress hearing, the Court was initially of the view that the Government had failed to establish consent. The Court granted the Government the choice of presenting more evidence at a later date, or, in the alternative, accepting a ruling that day adverse to the Government's position. Subsequently, however, in an order dated April 17, 1978, the Court denied the motion relying primarily upon United States v. Shields, 573 F.2d 18 (10th Cir. 1978). During trial, counsel for Appellant Wilson again renewed the motion to suppress. It was denied by the District Court. We hold that the District Court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. See: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Shields, supra. 111 Appellant Balloue argues that the application of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, denied him effective assistance of counsel in that it is difficult to formulate strategy when none of the government's witnesses, or their testimony is disclosed in advanced (sic), when there are more than 75 witnesses called, and when there are 18 defendants in the courtroom. (Brief of Appellant Balloue at p. 24). Appellant Balloue's argument is anchored to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 112 While we find Appellant Balloue's argument novel and interesting, we cannot hold that the application of the Jencks Act denied Balloue effective assistance of counsel. This case, while complex, was not so difficult as to call into question the constitutional dimensions of the Sixth Amendment concerning the material sought. 113 Objection is also made to the District Court's admission in evidence of certain testimony which tended to show participation in other criminal activity. Appellants Balloue, Igo, and Petersen's contentions are foreclosed by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), 28 U.S.C. The incidents introduced at trial were clearly within the purview of that particular section. 114 The assertion of Appellant Dixon that venue was not properly laid in the District of Colorado as to his participation in the conspiracy is not well founded. It is settled that venue as to prosecution of all members of a conspiracy lies either in the jurisdiction in which the conspiratorial agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction in which an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators. United States v. Overshon, 494 F.2d 894 (8th Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 853, 95 S.Ct. 96, 42 L.Ed.2d 85 (1974). The existence of the conspiracy was adequately established by the Government. Appellant Dixon was shown to have been a member of the conspiracy and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were committed within the State of Colorado. 115 The remaining allegations of error on behalf of all Appellants have been considered. We find that they are, individually and collectively, without merit. 116 WE AFFIRM.