Opinion ID: 461592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims Initially Raised by Morrell

Text: 71 Denial of Severance Motions by Morrell, Murphy, and Katz 72 Morrell contends that his resignation from the Philadelphia Police Department on March 29, 1983 terminated his association with the conspiracy as well. In accordance with department procedure, news of Morrell's resignation was sent over the department's teletype to all precincts. Captain Linso, Morrell's commanding officer and the only person in the conspiracy who knew about Morrell's involvement, testified that he had read the teletyped report of Morrell's retirement. Given these facts, Morrell argues that he had shown that he had withdrawn from the conspiracy as a matter of law and was entitled to a severance from the trial of the other defendants. 73 The legal principles governing withdrawal are relatively clear. In United States v. Continental Group, Inc., 603 F.2d 444, 467 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1032, 100 S.Ct. 703, 62 L.Ed.2d 668 (1980), we observed that  '[m]ere cessation of activity in furtherance of the conspiracy is not sufficient to establish withdrawal'. Once the government establishes by a preponderance of the evidence a defendant's connection with a conspiracy, [t]he defendant must present evidence of some affirmative act of withdrawal on his part, typically either a full confession to the authorities or communication to his coconspirators that he has abandoned the enterprise and its goals. United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 803 (3d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 908, 103 S.Ct. 213, 74 L.Ed.2d 170 (1982); see United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464-65, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 2887, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978). If the defendant makes this prima facie showing, the government must rebut the showing either by impeaching the defendant's proof or by going forward with evidence of some conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy subsequent to the act of withdrawal. Steele, 685 F.2d at 804. Relying upon Steele, Morrell believes that his retirement notice satisfied this burden and required the government to present further evidence of his continuing involvement in the conspiracy. We disagree. 74 Steele concerned General Electric's attempt to win a construction contract through a bribery scheme. Naples, a General Electric employee, argued that he had withdrawn from the conspiracy by resigning from General Electric. In holding that Naples had made a prima facie case of withdraw, we noted that Naples had presented evidence that he had permanently severed his employment relationship with General Electric. Termination of employment with General Electric in Steele sufficed to notify Naples's coconspirators that he had abandoned the enterprise and, necessarily, its goals and any claim to the conspiracy's benefits. Resignation from the police department in the instant case did not carry the same message. Morrell failed to introduce any evidence to show that this notice affirmatively disassociated him from his contacts in the department or the victims of the extortion scheme, nor did the teletype message communicate that Morrell had repudiated all claim to the conspiracy's benefits. Unlike Steele, the government presented evidence showing that continued employment was not a necessary prerequisite to participation in the conspiracy. Under these circumstances, we hold that Linso's knowledge of Morrell's resignation, by itself, does not constitute the affirmative break with the conspiracy required to establish a prima facie case of withdrawal. 75 Murphy and Katz raise the same issue. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that there is even less support for the proposition that these defendants withdrew from the conspiracy. Murphy resigned on November 11, 1982 and Katz on March 14, 1983. Neither man produced evidence of an act that communicated abandonment of the enterprise and its goals to the other members of the conspiracy other than the resignation itself. With respect to Murphy, there is evidence that he attempted to extort money from a video machine vendor after he resigned from the department. We therefore hold that neither Murphy nor Katz established a prima facie case of withdrawal that might have supported a severance motion. 76 Admission of Coconspirators' Statements Against Morrell, Murphy and Katz 77 Morrell, Murphy, and Katz maintain that the district court erred by permitting the admission of certain taped conversations recorded after they had allegedly withdrawn from the conspiracy. They argue that these tapes should not have been admitted against them because the court did not find specificially as to these appellants that the preponderence of the evidence established that they were coconspirators at the time of the recordings. 78 We have held previously that the government must establish by independent evidence the existence of an ongoing conspiracy and the connection of both the hearsay declarant and the defendant against whom the statement is offered to this conspiracy to trigger the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). 4 See United States v. Inadi, 748 F.2d 812, 816-17 (3d Cir.1984), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2653, 86 L.Ed.2d 271 (U.S.1985); United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 843 (3d Cir.1984) (in banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 779, 83 L.Ed.2d 774 (1985); United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 245 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, Stillman v. U.S., 464 U.S. 936, 104 S.Ct. 344, 78 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983). Generally, the trial judge makes a finding that the government has shown the conspiracy's existence by a preponderance of the evidence before the statement is admitted. See United States v. Trowery, 542 F.2d 623, 627 (3d Cir.1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104, 97 S.Ct. 1132, 51 L.Ed.2d 555 (1977). This practice ensures the reliability of the coconspirator's statements by linking the defendant to the conspiracy before the statements are admitted and prevents the government from proving the conspiracy from the coconspirators' statements alone. We recognize, however, that in complex trials involving a large amount of interrelated testimony, it may be necessary to admit the statements provisionally, subject to a later finding of a conspiracy established by the preponderance of independent evidence. See United States v. Continental Group, Inc., 603 F.2d 444, 456-57 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1032, 100 S.Ct. 703, 62 L.Ed.2d 668 (1980). 79 In the instant case, the court exercised its discretion and admitted the recorded conversations subject to a later Trowery conspiracy finding. At the close of the government's case in chief, the trial court made a Trowery finding, prefacing its remarks by discussing the reasons why it could not rule that Morrell, Murphy, and Katz had made a prima facie case for withdrawal from the conspiracy. The court then went on to find that the evidence independent of the taped coconspirators' statements clearly established the existence of a conspiracy involving all of the defendants at the time of the conversations. Although we would have preferred a separate Trowery finding as to these appellants for the purposes of review, because the court made its Trowery finding immediately after dismissing appellants' withdrawal claims, we are compelled to hold that the court had reasonable grounds to find that Morrell, Murphy, and Katz were active participants in the conspiracy at the time of the conversations. See Ammar, 714 F.2d at 250. 5 80 Coconspirators Statements Not in Furtherance of the Conspiracy 81 Alternatively, Morrell, Murphy, and Katz allege that certain portions of the recordings should not have been admitted under the coconspirators exception because the statements were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy. These conversations, most of them between Alvaro and Martin, concerned the grand jury investigation, the selection of counsel, and the need for character witnesses. We have observed that the in furtherance requirement of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) is generally given a broad interpretation. See Gibbs, 739 F.2d at 845. In Ammar we said that statements that provide reassurance, serve to maintain trust and cohesiveness among [the coconspirators], or inform each other of the current status of the conspiracy further the ends of the conspiracy. Ammar, 714 F.2d at 252. Although the tapes do not concern the central focus of the conspiracy, i.e., the extortion of protection payments, they contain conversations between members of the conspiracy apprising one another of their efforts to avoid indictment and conviction. As such, we hold that these statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Sixth Amendment Confrontation Right 82 Morrell and Murphy contend that the admission of certain portions of tape recorded conversations, again mainly between Alvaro and Martin, violated their sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against them. The cases they cite supporting this proposition, however, are inapposite. In United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir.1978), the court excluded the recorded conversation of a person who was not a member of the conspiracy at the time he made the statements. Id. at 1233. Appellants concede that Martin was a member of the conspiracy at the time of the conversations. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), addressed a situation where a nontestifying co-defendant's confession was introduced into evidence against him at a joint trial, accompanied by the court's cautionary instruction to the jury that they could consider the confession only against the confessing defendant. Despite these instructions, the Supreme Court held that the statement was inadmissible because the confession clearly implicated the nonconfessing co-defendant in the crime. We should first note that the confession in Bruton constituted hearsay evidence against the co-defendant. As we discussed above, the trial court properly admitted these tapes against Morrell and Murphy under the coconspirators' statements exception to the hearsay rule. 83 Although the Supreme Court has indicated that the conconspirators exception is narrower than the sixth amendment requires, see Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 82, 91 S.Ct. 210, 216, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970) (plurality opinion), neither the Supreme Court nor this one has ever equated the two. See Gibbs, 739 F.2d at 852 (Rosenn, J., dissenting); Ammar, 714 F.2d at 255. Our examination of the record shows that appellants did not suffer any prejudice from the introduction of the statements. Indeed, we do not believe that the statements are covered by Bruton at all. Appellants are mentioned only briefly in the conversations when Alvaro and Martin discussed who they thought would be indicted. Nothing in the conversation supports an inference that either Alvaro or Martin knew that Murphy or Morrell were involved in the extortion scheme. Cf. United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855, 856 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 733, 79 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984) (admission involving repeated references to defendant and detailing his substantial involvement in the crime charged held Bruton statements). Further, the trial court immediately instructed the jury that the indictment could not be construed as evidence of guilt. Under these circumstances, we hold that the introduction of the tapes did not violate appellants' sixth amendment confrontation right. 6 Trial Court's Refusal to Give Morrell's Instruction 84 Morrell argues that the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that it could not find Morrell guilty if they found that he acted as a 'courier' or 'go-fer' for another defendant. In refusing to give the instruction, the court observed that it was confusing and that it incorrectly stated the law. We agree. Section 1962(c) makes liable those persons who are employed by or associated with the RICO enterprise. This section draws no distinction between the foot soldier and the general: the legislative intent was to make RICO violations dependent upon behavior, not status. United States v. Forsythe, 560 F.2d 1127, 1136 (3d Cir.1977). Thus, the RICO net is woven tightly to trap even the smallest fish, those peripherally involved in the enterprise. United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 903 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 953, 99 S.Ct. 349, 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978). It is no abuse of discretion to refuse to give a misleading instruction. See United States v. George, 625 F.2d 1081, 1087 (3d Cir.1980).