Opinion ID: 380919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prepared Transcripts

Text: 47 Voicing objections that are somewhat parallel though more serious than those raised in connection with the actual tape recordings, the appellants challenge the propriety of the jurors' use of the government-prepared transcripts. While the transcripts were not admitted into evidence, the jurors followed the transcripts while listening to the tapes during the trial. Given the poor quality of the tapes, we assume the jury made substantial use of the transcripts. Beyond the predictable allegations that the transcripts were inaccurate, appellants Redd and Slade claim that the transcripts served as an indirect and unconstitutional method of identifying them as participants in heroin sales. 48 It is within the trial court's discretion to allow the jury to use an accurate transcript to assist them in listening to (a) tape. McMillan, 508 F.2d at 105; Springer, 388 A.2d at 853. The need for a transcript tends to arise where, as here, portions of a tape were relatively inaudible and the identity of speakers was not automatically clear to a listener. United States v. Onori, 535 F.2d 938, 947 (5th Cir. 1976); McMillan, 508 F.2d at 105; United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849, 853 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812, 86 S.Ct. 28, 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965). Because a transcript is only meant to be a guide to evidence the tape being played it is important that the judge instruct the jurors that their personal understanding of the tape supersedes the text in a transcript. Onori, 535 F.2d at 949; McMillan, 508 F.2d at 106. Appropriate instructions were given whenever a tape was played, and this is not disputed. (Tr. at 482, 636, 668, 678, 691, 716). 49 The ideal procedure for testing accuracy is to have the prosecution and defense attorneys stipulate to a transcript. McMillan, 508 F.2d at 106; Onori, 535 F.2d at 948; Bryant, 480 F.2d at 791. When they cannot agree as to what is on tape, the second best alternative is for the trial court to make a pretrial determination of accuracy by reading the transcript against the tapes. Springer, 388 A.2d at 853-54. In either situation the jury receives a transcript, certified as a correct version of the tape. A third alternative is to present the jury with two transcripts, containing both sides' versions, and let the jury determine which is more accurate. Onori, 535 F.2d at 948-49. In this situation, because no one transcript is presented as correct, the judge need not necessarily listen to the tapes or pass on the accuracy of any transcript. Id. 50 In these cases, the defense counsel vigorously challenged the accuracy of the transcripts, largely because the tapes from which they were made were poor. Rather than comparing the tapes and transcripts at pretrial, 9 the court invited the defense counsel to submit their own transcripts. As discussed above, this ruling was not per se an abuse of discretion. Onori, 535 F.2d at 948-49. It is certainly not judicial error that defense counsel did not or could not utilize the opportunity. Id. 10 51 Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the jury's access to government-prepared transcripts was not reversible error, for two reasons. First, through defense objections and the court's cautionary instructions, the jury was made aware that the transcripts offered only the government's interpretations. The repeated instructions served to eliminate any prejudice that may have resulted from discrepancies between tape and transcript. Bryant, 480 F.2d at 791. There is no evidence that the tapes were so poor that the jurors could not compare the tapes and transcripts and that the transcripts became in effect the real evidence. 52 Second, the record provides substantial support for the relative accuracy of the transcripts. Detective Kenneth Johnson testified concerning the preparation of the transcripts. See, e. g., Bryant, 480 F.2d at 790-91. He developed preliminary drafts from the original tapes, identifying the informants from personal knowledge and other voices by references. Johnson then would play and review the tapes with the informants to determine who was talking. Both informants testified that the enhanced tapes and transcripts corresponded accurately. (Tr. at 396-97, 635). Finally, while the tapes were played in court, the informants identified the speakers and explained what was taking place. 53 Appellants Redd and Slade raise an additional objection to the transcripts, based on what they view as a highly suggestive identification process. 11 They contend that government agents actually identified the voices on the tape by supplying drafts with names to the informants, a procedure they claim to be more prejudicial than the single photograph identification struck down in Mason v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 280, 286, 414 F.2d 1176, 1182 (1969). 54 The record simply does not support this due process argument. The informants did have an active role in identifying voices for the transcripts. There is no question of their competence to identify the voices. 12 There was evidence that Whaley had substantial connections with Stampede Johnson, Slade and Redd the appellants convicted on counts involving conversations taped by Whaley from times before the investigation. 13 Fountain, 384 F.2d at 632. See also McMillan, 508 F.2d at 105. The agents' testimony and the videotape corroborated the voice identifications. 55 In sum, while the identification process was not perfect, due in large part to the poor quality of the original tapes, the process in no way violated appellants' constitutional rights. Nor is a remand required on grounds that the presence of names in the transcripts suppl(ied) ersatz corroboration of testimonial identification. 14 56 B. The St. Elizabeth's Hospital Records of Informant Allen Whaley 57 Prior to Whaley's cross-examination the defense announced its intention to offer the records of that informant's confinement for mental illness at St. Elizabeth's Hospital. Objections were presented by the prosecutor on grounds that Whaley had been released prior to his activities as an informant. The court ruled that the record was confidential and would not be admitted into evidence. (Tr. at 859). 58 Counsel were allowed to establish only that Whaley was at St. Elizabeth's from 1970 to 1974 after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity to a burglary charge; that he was in an outpatient treatment program in April, 1976, when he was found socially rehabilitated; and that he was under medication only on a limited basis. The court did not allow defense counsel to inquire of any diagnosis or treatment received or to use the hospital report to impeach his claim that he never used LSD. 59 Given the importance of Whaley's testimony to the government's case and his uncertain credibility, the appellants contend that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination into his medical records was reversible error. 15 The government argues that the court made a proper balance of their marginal probative worth and their high potential for prejudice and confusion. 16 60 However, the trial court did not attempt to strike any balance between the relevance and potential prejudice of the evidence, but rather pronounced the records confidential without explanation. This ruling was an abuse of discretion. Rule 403, Fed.R.Evid. Nowhere in the record did anyone raise the privilege of confidentiality, and the appellants' views on the privilege are nowhere fully aired. 61 It is not necessary to make a determination whether the St. Elizabeth's records or their contents were admissible, a task made impossible by the paucity of the record. For purposes of this appeal, we assume that Whaley's mental health history was relevant to his credibility as a witness to 1977 events. Sinclair v. Turner, 447 F.2d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1048, 92 S.Ct. 1329, 31 L.Ed.2d 590 (1972). The court also assumes that this relevance outweighed any personal harm that would be caused by disclosing this history, United States v. Honneus, 508 F.2d 566, 573 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 948, 95 S.Ct. 1677, 44 L.Ed.2d 101 (1975), and that appellants had a right to cross-examine him in detail about his St. Elizabeth's records to attack his credibility. United States v. Partin, 493 F.2d 750, 763 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1978). Even so, on the basis of Whaley's complete testimony, the trial court's refusal to admit details of his St. Elizabeth's stay is not reversible error. 62 The jury knew, courtesy of the prosecutor, that Whaley was an addict and a thief who was paid for informing on his friends. During an extensive cross-examination, Whaley admitted that he continued to use heroin and commit larceny throughout the investigation, that he had an extensive criminal record, and that he hoped to avoid imprisonment by cooperating with DEA. The jury learned that Whaley was committed to St. Elizabeth's mental hospital for criminal insanity in 1970, remained there for four years, and was treated as an outpatient for two more years. Defense counsel elicited the fact that Whaley resumed his heroin habit after release against doctors' orders. Given all this evidence, the Court cannot find that details about Whaley's mental illness, or additional impeachment by reference to statements he may have made to St. Elizabeth's doctors about LSD use, would have significantly affected the jury's evaluation of his credibility or swayed the verdicts. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). C. References to Stampede's Organization 63 In this conspiracy the prosecution was obligated to prove that John Stampede Johnson, assisted by his brother Odell, managed an organization selling heroin. All the substantive counts involve purchases from the organization. It is indisputable that the street term Stampede's organization was the equivalent of the legal term conspiracy. Nor could one dispute that the ultimate question for the jury was whether such an organization existed. 64 Appellants therefore all objected to repeated references by the several government witnesses to Stampede's organization or Stampede's dope. In addition to raising hearsay objections, they argue that the witnesses thereby implied that the police had evidence beyond that introduced at trial that such an organization existed, in contravention of United States v. Hilliard, 186 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 569 F.2d 143 (1977). They contend that the trial court's lukewarm reprimands to the prosecutor 17 and the belated instructions to the jury to disregard such references did not temper the inherent prejudice. 65 We disagree with the government's characterization of such references as having been occasional and spontaneous. The remarks appear at several points in the record. They are highlighted by defense motions for mistrial, all denied. 66 These comments were unnecessary since each witness could just as easily have testified to a purchase of narcotics or plans to meet with Stampede Johnson. Additionally, they were improper since they essentially constituted the legal conclusion that a heroin distribution conspiracy existed. The prosecutor admitted as much when he justified such a reference as opinion evidence by a witness who is familiar with how the operation works. (Tr. at 652). The problem with this explanation is that Smith, Patterson, Whaley and Ward were not expert witnesses, nor was a foundation laid for lay witness opinion testimony under Rule 701, Fed.R.Evid. 67 Despite the argument of appellant Stampede Johnson, there is no evidence that the prosecutor deliberately elicited the phrase organization from his witnesses. Once the improper statements were made, the court gave appropriate instructions to the jury to ignore them. (Tr. at 973-74). 68 While the several references to Stampede's organization in the record are unfortunate, they do not create a campaign of suggestion equivalent to that in United States v. Hilliard, supra, where the defendant was indicted under the aka Meatball for armed robbery of a postal employee. The government presented substantial testimony against a subject named Meatball, but no admissible evidence that Hilliard was ever known as Meatball. The Court reversed the conviction, finding that 69 the inevitable result of the prosecutor's repeated questions and references to Meatball and the suspect discovered by the investigation was to splash the defendant with damaging matter that was not in evidence. 70 186 U.S.App.D.C. at 315, 569 F.2d at 146. 71 In comparison, the prosecution here presented substantial independent evidence of the crimes charged in the indictment. The extensive testimony, augmented with audio and video tapes, clearly showed that appellants were participants in a heroin sales network operating under Stampede Johnson's direction. 18 The references to Stampede's organization did not insinuate the existence of substantive evidence that was not presented to the jury, but rather that government agents at the start of the investigation had some reason to believe that a ring involving Stampede Johnson was selling heroin. The references were almost always made in the context of a government agent and/or an informant starting out on some new phase of the investigation. It is not incumbent on the government to prove why it suspected a conspiracy, but only that a conspiracy existed and the named defendants were members. 72 The references were unnecessary since the jury could presume as a matter of common sense that the government had some basis to investigate this group of defendants. Viewing the overwhelming substantive evidence in this case, it is also a matter of common sense that the specific references to Stampede's organization did not shape the jury's thinking or cause the jury to find a conspiracy among the appellants. Applying the standard applied in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) we cannot find that the judgment was substantially swayed by the error and therefore will not reverse the convictions on this ground. D. The Challenged Conspiracy Instruction 73 The trial court gave the following jury instruction as to the evidence that may be considered in determining a particular defendant's membership in the alleged conspiracy: 74 Now, as to participation in the conspiracy. Once satisfied that the conspiracy charge(d) existed, you must ask yourself who its members were. In deciding whether a defendant on trial before you was a member of the conspiracy, you should consider whether on all the evidence, that defendant knowingly entered the conspiracy and was a willing participant. (Emphasis added.) (Tr. at 2140). 75 In doing so the court accepted the government's requested charge, rather than the defense's requested instruction for conspiracy in the Redbook, Young Lawyers Section, D.C. Bar, Criminal Jury Instructions 302 (3d ed. 1978). 19 The Redbook instruction provides: 76 In determining . . . whether (the) (a particular) defendant was knowingly a member of the conspiracy, if such a conspiracy existed, you may consider only his own acts or statements. A defendant cannot be bound by the acts or statements of other participants unless or until it is established that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant was one of its members. (Emphasis added). 20 77 Unlike the Redbook instruction, the instruction actually given allows the jury to consider hearsay statements of a co-conspirator in determining the membership of a particular defendant in the conspiracy. 78 Since the 1976 revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, most of the circuits have expressly held that the judge, not the jury, is to determine the admissibility of alleged co-conspirator statements. United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2836, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979); United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128, 1133 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bell, 573 F.2d 1040, 1043-45 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Martorano, 557 F.2d 1, 11-22 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 922, 98 S.Ct. 1484, 55 L.Ed. 515 (1978); United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Trowery, 542 F.2d 623, 626-27 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104, 97 S.Ct. 1132, 51 L.Ed.2d 555 (1977). These courts have treated the question of the admissibility of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Fed.R.Evid., as one of competence under Rule 104(a), requiring the court to make the preliminary determination of the admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence. See, e. g., James, 590 F.2d at 579-80; Santiago, 582 F.2d at 1133. The court therefore bears the responsibility of determining whether the evidence of conspiracy and its membership is strong enough to allow the jury to consider the co-conspirator statements. 79 This court recently joined this trend in our decisions in United States v. Gantt, 617 F.2d 831 (D.C.Cir. 1980) and United States v. Jackson, 627F.2d 1198, (D.C.Cir., 1980). These two cases require the trial judge to determine the existence of a conspiracy and the defendant's participation in that conspiracy by substantial independent evidence before permitting the jury to consider the challenged co-conspirator statements in its deliberations. See Jackson, at 1219 of 627 F.2d; Gantt, at ---- of 617 F.2d. They also require the trial court to find by substantial independent evidence that the co-conspirator statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy in which the defendant participated. See Gantt, at 845 of 617 F.2d. The preferred practice is for the trial court to make these determinations before the hearsay evidence is admitted. The court retains discretion, however, to admit particular co-conspirator statements conditioned on a later showing of substantial independent evidence of the three prerequisites for their admission. See Jackson, at 1218 of 627 F.2d. 21 A fair implication of these cases is also that where the trial judge has made the required preliminary determinations, and decided that the hearsay statements are admissible, he may charge the jury to consider the defendant's substantive guilt based upon all the evidence presented. See Gantt, at 845 of 617 F.2d. The trial record reflects no analysis or even awareness of the goals behind the Rule 104(a) competency approach. This Court cannot assume, despite the government's argument, that the judge implicitly made the requisite initial determination of admissibility of co-conspirator statements. 22 Without such a determination, the judge's use of the all the evidence instruction is questionable. The underlying premise for the all the evidence instruction is that the trial judge has previously made an independent determination that the co-conspirator statements included in that evidence are admissible. See Gantt, at 844 of 617 F.2d. Especially in the instant cases, which were marred by reference to Stampede's organization, we are disturbed by the trial judge's use of the all the evidence instruction with no indication that he made the requisite preliminary determinations of admissibility. 80 Despite the foregoing, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, substantially in the form of tapes and independent evidence against each appellant. Co-conspirator statements and references to Stampede's organization were not a significant part of the prosecution's case. Only two appellants here point to potentially damaging co-conspirator hearsay. As we today reverse the conviction of appellant Watson on other grounds, 23 we need not reach the prejudice to him from the instruction error. As for appellant Marshall, we find that he was not prejudiced by the instruction error. He was convicted only on the count for which a video-tape documented the offense. The jury apparently was able to consider Marshall's role as distinguished from the totality of evidence; the jury acquitted Marshall of the four other charges against him. See Appendix A. 81 The several appellants' convictions on the conspiracy count, based on the given jury instruction as to conspiracy membership, will not be disturbed.