Opinion ID: 305172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Guilty Pleas of Government Witnesses.

Text: 64 On his third point, Franicevich's sole reliance is upon United States v. Harrell, 5 Cir. 1970, 436 F.2d 606. It is obvious that Franicevich's position is an afterthought and is without merit. 65 Harrell contains a full discussion of certain circumstances under which pleas of guilty by a coconspirator as to either conspiracy or the substantive offense will affect a defendant's substantial rights and amount to plain error under Rule 52(b), F.R.Crim.P. This case does not present such circumstances. 4 66 Not only did Franicevich register no objection at the trial, but he readily recognized from the beginning to the end, from the opening statements to the final arguments, that the proper and natural way to present the evidence was to show admitted commission of the substantive offense by six other persons both as affecting the credibility of the four of those persons who testified 5 and as an orderly way of narrating the evidence. 67 The prosecutor's opening statement to the jury disclosed, without objection, 68 Now, six men entered pleas of guilty in this court, ladies and gentlemen, to charges of tampering with a vessel and they were sentenced by the Court. They were George Blanchard, Calvin Pelas, Sr., Jim Boyd, Marshall Dixon, Calvin Pelas, Jr., and Pat Bowers. 69 The defendant in this case, Mr. Franicevich, was not charged in that indictment, because the government is not accusing him of tampering with that vessel, but the government is accusing him of conspiracy-with unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and feloniously conspiring to remove the engines and navigational instruments of a vessel of the United States, with the intent to injure or endanger the safety of said vessel. (App. 70.) 70 Franicevich's counsel in his opening statement responded in part as follows: 71 That vessel was cut up and sunk by six other people. You heard counsel give you their names, and you heard him say they all pleaded guilty in this court, and they were sentenced, but on what charge? Not conspiracy-no; tampering with a vessel. 72 That's what that was all about, tampering with a vessel. Now, what about Motto Franicevich? He wasn't charged with tampering with a vessel. Why not? Because he wasn't there. He wasn't anywhere near that place when all that was done. 73 So those six men pleaded guilty and were sentenced, and then what happened? 74 (App. 71-72.) 75 Indeed, that the commission of the substantive offense by six other persons fitted into the strategy of Franicevich's defense appears clear throughout the record, including his counsel's closing argument to the jury: 76 There is no question that that happened. Six men participated in it, were indicted, entered pleas, and were sentenced. Motto Franicevich was not one of them. He is not charged with doing any act on that vessel. 77