Opinion ID: 453009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the validity of the evidence

Text: 21 Appellants Philip Weinstein and Stanley Kowitt challenge the validity of the evidence offered against them on the basis of claimed fourth amendment violations in FBI searches of their respective places of business. We examine these claims as to each appellant. 22
23 On July 13, 1977, FBI agents executed a search warrant at the premises of American Medicinal Corporation (AMC) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Pursuant to this search warrant numerous corporate documents were seized. Moreover, information obtained during the July 13 search led to a subsequent search warrant executed at AMC offices on July 18, 1977. Documents seized from both searches were introduced at trial. The appellant Philip Weinstein filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained through both searches. During evidentiary hearings on these motions the district court ruled, and the government conceded, that the defendant had legal standing to raise the issue of fourth amendment violations. We assume that this is so. 24 After evidentiary hearings, the district court denied the motions to suppress in all respects. The district court later denied a renewed motion to suppress and a consequent motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial on this ground. 25 Appellant Philip Weinstein's attack on the validity of this evidence is two-fold. He argues, first, that the warrant executed on July 13, 1977 was impermissibly overbroad in light of the probable cause shown in support of that warrant. Alternatively, he argues the July 13, 1977 warrant was insufficiently particular. We will address both claims. 26
27 Attached to the July 13, 1977 warrant and incorporated therein by reference was an Exhibit A listing 28 individuals, companies, and organizations thought by the FBI to be involved in the pharmaceutical fraud scheme. Included in this list of individuals and organizations were Philip Weinstein and his companies, AMI and AMC, Robert Falvo, Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein, Stanley Kowitt, Solomon Richman and his company, GABAR, and the purportedly charitable organizations of Opus Christi America, IMA and Church of God World Missions, Inc. Exhibit A also noted the types of documents which were thought to be material to the investigation: correspondence, invoices, cancelled checks, check stubs, address books, diaries, and other documents typically used in a business organization. Also attached to the warrant was an affidavit by FBI agent Claude Roberts reciting the operative facts upon which a conclusion of probable cause was sought. The affidavit set forth in detail the scope and operation of the pharmaceutical fraud scheme. The affidavit did not, however, make mention of the role of GABAR or Solomon Richman in that scheme. 28 On the basis of these facts the appellant Philip Weinstein argues that, because the affidavit did not mention GABAR or Solomon Richman, the magistrate could not conclude probable cause existed as to these entities. Because Exhibit A to the warrant did authorize the seizure of documents pertaining to Richman and GABAR, however, the warrant is alleged to be overbroad. 29 As noted previously, the FBI entered the AMC premises to peruse documents authorized by the magistrate's warrant. The warrant and Exhibit A appended thereto gave clear indication that correspondence addressed to Solomon Richman or GABAR was within the scope of probable cause shown. We believe seizure of a document so apparently within the scope of the warrant would be made in good faith, hence valid. United States v. Leon, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3421-23, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 30 In the instant case, however, we are presented with an officer exercising the utmost of good faith. Entering the AMC premises on July 13, warrant and affidavit in hand, the agent viewed the GABAR file and concluded that, because the affidavit did not recite facts about Solomon Richman or GABAR (even though the exhibit to the warrant did), the content of the file might be beyond probable cause shown. Appellant Philip Weinstein urges that the good faith exception is inapplicable here because, by refusing to seize the GABAR file during the first search, the agent, an experienced member of the FBI, manifested his awareness that he did not have probable cause as to Richman or GABAR. We reject this argument. By declining to seize the GABAR file during the initial search, the agent showed careful respect for the judicial limitations upon his authority to search. We approve such caution, and refuse to allow what is clearly a good faith attempt to abide the fourth amendment's mandate to become, through judicial interpretation, the indicium of bad faith. Assuming arguendo that the warrant authorizing the initial search of AMC premises was overbroad, we nevertheless hold that documents viewed during the course of that search and seized during the course of a second, need not be excluded. They were obtained in good faith reliance upon the warrant. United States v. Leon, --- U.S. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3423 (1984). 31
32 Appellant Philip Weinstein also argues that the initial search warrant was insufficiently particular and invalid. Consequently the second search warrant obtained as a fruit of the first was also invalid. The warrant in question authorized the FBI to search the premises of American Medicinal Corporation for property identified in Exhibit A, attached to the warrant and expressly incorporated within it. The warrant stated that the property sought was 33 relevant and material to alleged violations of the mail fraud statute (Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341), the wire fraud statute (Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343) and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt [sic] Organizations statute (Title 18, U.S.C. Sections 1961 to 1968 inclusive) committed in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere.... 34 Exhibit A identified the property sought as: 35 [c]orrespondence, invoices, cancelled checks, check stubs, telegrams, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, bank statements, ledgers, work papers, purchase orders, telephone toll records, address books, daily diaries, calendars, customer lists, autodexes, intracorporate and intercorporate memoranda, and credit card statements pertaining to the following individuals, business firms, and/or purported charities: ... 36 Exhibit A then set out twenty-eight individuals, business firms, and purported charities which were suspected of involvement in the pharmaceutical fraud scheme. 37 Clearly, an affidavit incorporated into a warrant by express reference and attached to and accompanying the warrant can cure ambiguity in the warrant itself. United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343, 1351 n. 6 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 69, 78 L.Ed.2d 83 (1983); United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1154-58 (5th Cir.), corrected, 664 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 1721, 72 L.Ed.2d 140 (1982). The affidavit of FBI agent Roberts, attached to the warrant, set out the scope and operation of the pharmaceutical fraud scheme thought to be operated by, inter alia, AMC, AMI and Philip Weinstein. Included within that affidavit were the dates during which the scheme was believed to have operated. Moreover, the agents conducting the challenged searches were briefed about the investigation; the agent who investigated the case was available to answer questions. On the basis of this showing we believe that the warrant, both as issued and as executed, was sufficiently particular in scope to pass muster under the fourth amendment. 4 As the initial warrant was valid, so the second warrant, issued on the basis of probable cause ascertained during the initial search, was likewise valid. 38
39 As with Philip Weinstein and AMC, the FBI twice searched the offices of Majestic Sales, the business of the appellant Stanley Kowitt. Appellant Kowitt disputes the admission of evidence seized in these searches because the description of the premises contained in the warrants was, he asserts, legally insufficient. 5 Majestic Sales was in the southwest, not the northwest corner of the building as indicated in the warrant. This discrepancy, appellant Kowitt claims, left to the searching officers a degree of discretion not countenanced by the Constitution. We disagree. 40 As we stated in Haydel, [a] warrant's description of the place to be searched need not meet technical requirements nor have the specificity sought by conveyancers. It need only describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity to direct the searcher, to confine his examination to the place described, and to advise those being searched of his authority. 649 F.2d at 1157. See also Steele v. United States No. 1, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925); United States v. Prout, 526 F.2d 380, 386-88 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 840, 97 S.Ct. 114, 50 L.Ed.2d 109 (1976); United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371-72 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 148, 62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979); United States v. Campanile, 516 F.2d 288, 291 (2d Cir.1975). An erroneous description of premises to be searched is not necessarily fatal to the validity of a warrant. United States v. Melancon, 462 F.2d 82, 94 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1038, 93 S.Ct. 516, 34 L.Ed.2d 487 (1972). The fourth amendment requires merely that the search warrant describe the premises in such a way that the searching officer may with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended. Steele, 267 U.S. at 503, 45 S.Ct. at 416 (1925). 41 The evidence demonstrated that there were two unconnected offices on the west side of the building housing Majestic Sales. One of those offices was occupied by Majestic Sales, the other by an automobile supply firm. Each office had a separate door on the west side of the building. The agent conducting the searches testified that he had been to the premises before and that he had had no doubt which door gave access to Majestic Sales. Furthermore, when the agents arrived at the Majestic Sales office, their knock was unanswered. They inquired to no avail in the automobile supply firm for information about disconnecting the burglar alarm at Majestic Sales. They then called the burglar alarm company to disconnect the alarm and a locksmith to open the door. 42 We hold that under the circumstances presented here the warrants' erroneous designation of the wrong corner of the building did not invalidate the warrants or the searches conducted pursuant to them. Steele, 267 U.S. at 503, 45 S.Ct. at 416; Prout, 526 F.2d at 386-88; United States v. Darensbourg, 520 F.2d 985, 986-88 (5th Cir.1975); Melancon, 462 F.2d at 94.
43 As a preface to their arguments against sufficiency of the evidence, all appellants raise a number of issues concerning the district court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence. We address these contentions here. 44
45 A recurring theme in the briefs and arguments of all appellants is that the district court incorrectly excluded evidence concerning the nature of the appellant's activities in the context of the pharmaceutical market. Through one fashion or another, this evidence was calculated to show that the antitrust laws of the United States relieved the appellants of criminal responsibility and that evidence of the operation of these laws was material to the defense. Two arguments are made. 46 Appellants first argue that the pricing scheme avoided by their misrepresentations was itself illegal under antitrust law. Avoidance of an illegal scheme is not a crime, they urge, and thus, because they did not believe their misrepresentations to have been criminal, scienter was absent and a finding of fraud precluded. We find this argument untenable. The merits of manufacturers' claims of right to sell drugs domestically at uniform prices is immaterial to the issue of fraud. If defendants doubted the legality of that practice their recourse would have been through antitrust action, not through a scheme of misrepresentations communicated through U.S. mails and wires. 47 Secondly, appellants argue that their misrepresentations were not material because the manufacturers were aware appellants did not really represent charitable or export interests. Without materiality, they point out, there could be no fraud. This argument, too, cannot stand. The district court, while he excluded evidence on the antitrust laws, allowed considerable evidence on the operation and the legitimacy of the American diversion industry, including defendants' allegation that some manufacturers wink at representations of nonprofit or export status in order to use the diversion market as a dumping-ground for drugs nearing expiration. Thus the issue of materiality was framed for the jury, and in finding fraud they determined that issue.
48
49 Philip Weinstein and Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein argue that a purported telex in support of Count V (wire fraud) was improperly admitted because there was no evidence that the telex was actually transmitted. 50 Identification and admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Bury v. Marietta Dodge, 692 F.2d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir.1982); Meadows and Walker Drilling Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 417 F.2d 378, 382 (5th Cir.1969). Moreover, letters and presumably telegrams are prima facie authentic if their content is responsive to prior properly admitted communications. 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence Sec. 525 (1973); 5 J. Weinstein and Burger, Weinstein's Evidence paragraphs 901(b)(4) and (1983). 51 The telexes in question were responsive to a June 9, 1977 letter from Solomon Richman to Philip Weinstein. The admission of the June 9 letter is not disputed. The evidence is therefore sufficient to support a finding that the telex in question is what the government claims it to be. Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). Additionally, we hold that the content of the telexes evidence use of interstate communications facilities. See United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1343 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). 52
53 More problematical is the appellant Wilhelmina Weinstein's argument that the government failed to authenticate an envelope attached to the government's Exhibit 230. Government's Exhibit 230 is a copy of a letter dated June 9, 1977 from Richman and GABAR in Belgium addressed to the AMC offices of Philip Weinstein in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The June 9th letter summarized the sales and purchases between GABAR and AMC from November, 1976, to February, 1977. The letter also voiced concern about the appearance of pharmaceutical products diverted through AMC on the pharmaceutical diversion market and the pharmaceutical manufacturers' awareness of these appearances. The letter also set out proposed conditions for continued business between GABAR and AMC. The June 9 letter was seized by the FBI at the AMC offices pursuant to the second warrant executed on July 18, 1977. The letter was identified at trial by the FBI officer in charge of the investigation. Counsel for Wilhelmina Weinstein objected to the connection of the letter and envelope at the close of the government's case. The court reserved ruling on the envelope's admissibility until further evidence was received. 54 The June 9th letter was addressed to Philip Weinstein. Attached to the letter at trial was an envelope, postmarked June 21, 1977, Brussels, addressed to Wilhelmina Weinstein at her residence. The envelope was evidently seized at the same time and place as the letter. Wilhelmina Weinstein does not contest the content of the letter, but argues that the envelope which connects her to that content was not part of the original exhibit, and was improperly admitted because it was not independently authenticated. At the close of all evidence in the case she moved for judgment of acquittal or new trial on this ground, pointing out that there was no testimony whatsoever as to the envelope. The government responded that the envelope was at all times attached to the letter and that, as early as the grand jury investigation, the document was described as a letter addressed to Ms. Wilma Harich postmarked June 21, 1977, at Brussels, Belgium. Moreover, the government now argues that certain remarks of appellants' counsel at a pretrial hearing indicate their awareness that an envelope was attached to the letter. The district court permitted the envelope to remain stapled to the government's exhibit and denied without opinion the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial on this issue. 6 55 In our careful review of this record we have been unable to find (and counsel for the government has been unable to point out) any evidence linking the envelope addressed to Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein to the letter addressed to Philip Weinstein. Indeed the only connection between these two documents which the evidence in this case supports is the fact that the letter and the envelope were stapled together at the time of their production before the grand jury. If this letter were sent in the envelope at issue, the defense of the appellant Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein would have been substantially impaired. One claiming to be a non-participating bystander would be hard put to explain the receipt of such a conspiratorial writing. The acceptance of the letter and the envelope into evidence as one exhibit, stapled together, with no testimony or other evidence linking the two documents, was error and prejudicial to Wilhelmina Weinstein's defense. The harm accruing from this error being unquestionable, the conviction of appellant Wilhelmina Weinstein must be vacated and the case against her remanded for a new trial. 56
57 The appellant Solomon Richman argues that hearsay statements, by alleged coconspirators, admitted against him at trial were inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because they were not statements made during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy. Appellant Richman argues there was insubstantial independent evidence to support the admission of the hearsay statements of the appellant's alleged coconspirators. United States v. Alvarez, 696 F.2d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 907, 103 S.Ct. 1878, 76 L.Ed.2d 809 (1983); United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir.), (en banc), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2836, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979). 58 In James our predecessor court held that a trial judge must determine admissibility of coconspirator hearsay based upon substantial and independent evidence (a) that a conspiracy existed, (b) that the defendant and the declarant both were members of the conspiracy, and (c) that the hearsay statements sought to be admitted were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. James, 590 F.2d 578-81. Moreover, even if the requirements of James are not met and coconspirator hearsay is improperly admitted, that admission may nevertheless be harmless error. United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1026-27 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S.Ct. 2965, 73 L.Ed.2d 1354 (1982). 59 The hearsay testimony of which the appellant Richman principally complains came in through testimony by Boudewijn Van Pamelen 7 about statements made to him by Wilhelmina Weinstein. This testimony was generally to the effect that Van Pamelen met (then) Wilhelmina Harich in Germany in 1974 and that she accompanied him to the United States. Van Pamelen testified that during the time Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein cohabited with him she told him that pharmaceutical products were transferred from the Church of God to third parties and eventually to the GABAR corporation for resale in the United States. 60 The government urges that there was sufficient proof of a conspiracy under James to establish the admissibility of these coconspirator hearsay statements. Alternatively, the government argues that any error in admitting the alleged hearsay was harmless because testimony so allowed was cumulative. See e.g., United States v. Means, 695 F.2d 811 (5th Cir.1983). 61 The June 9th letter from Richman to Philip Weinstein links Richman to Weinstein, hence to the conspiracy and Wilhelmina Weinstein, the declarant of Van Pamelen's testimony. However, we note that the statements of which the appellant Richman principally complains are not, on their face, in furtherance of the conspiracy. As such, the central requirement of James would appear to be unsatisfied in the instant case. 62 We need not decide that question, however, because the statements at issue are, in our view, cumulative. At least in a nonconstitutional sense, therefore, see e.g., Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1247-48, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), any error from their admission must be deemed harmless. Means, 695 F.2d at 818; Phillips, 664 F.2d at 1027, n. 84. Additionally, although appellant Richman does not expressly raise the point, we note that it is still an open question in this circuit whether erroneous admission of coconspirator hearsay may constitute a violation of the constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses. 8 We need not now decide that issue because the evidence presented in the admissible June 9, 1977 letter from Richman to Philip Weinstein was overwhelmingly probative of guilt. 9 It is our view that the cumulative admission of potentially erroneous hearsay statements linking Solomon Richman to the conspiracy at issue were, beyond a reasonable doubt, not determinative of the outcome of this trial as to the appellant Richman. Accordingly, any constitutional error in the admission of these statements was harmless in a constitutional sense as well. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).