Opinion ID: 369077
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: steven baker

Text: 139 Baker was convicted of conspiracy (Count 1) and of two substantive counts (Counts 3 and 7) of possessing and distributing narcotic drugs. He was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment on each of Counts 1 and 3 to run consecutively, fined $10,000 and given a special parole term of three years on both Counts 1 and 3. The sentence on Count 7, also 15 years and a three-year special parole term (plus $10,000), was to be served concurrently with the sentences on Counts 1 and 3. To the arguments of the other defendants, which he adopts, Baker adds three points particularly applicable to him: (1) illegality of a post-arrest statement; (2) prejudicial joinder; and (3) admission of prejudicial hearsay. The Post-Arrest Statement 140 Baker was arrested on March 15, 1977 and taken to DEA headquarters. Baker argues that after he and McCoy had been arrested, and while they were being taken to DEA headquarters in Manhattan, a DEA agent and others entered his apartment by means of keys taken from him, and seized drugs and other incriminating articles. Because these items were products of an illegal search, Baker argues, it was error for the trial court to refuse to suppress them. However, the Government made no attempt to introduce these seized items into evidence. Baker's claim, therefore, has to be and is, that he would not have made the admissions attributed to him (namely, that he dealt in drugs and was in a lot of trouble (Tr. 7772-7814)) but for his knowledge that the DEA had found incriminating items in his apartment hence they were fruit of the illegal search. (Baker Br. 21). 141 While Baker was at DEA headquarters, he was shown a videotape of himself carrying bags contained mannite into his apartment building. It was under these circumstances that Baker said: I have seen enough (Tr. 7778); and I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm guilty. (Tr. 7784). The trial court had heard the testimony of DEA agents, an Assistant United States Attorney, and Baker himself. The spontaneity of Baker's reaction to the videotape would appear to support the trial court's conclusion that Baker's statement was not occasioned by reason of the fact that in advance of having given it, Steven Baker knew that his apartment was searched. (Pre-trial Tr. 373). The trial court further found that Baker's statement, insofar as it was given after Miranda warnings, is admissible and that none of his rights have been violated . . . . (Pre-trial Tr. 373). The trial court's decision is supported by the record; there was no error. Illegal Joinder 142 Baker's claim of illegal joinder is similar to that of his co-defendants, namely, that he was not part of a Barnes conspiracy. He identifies himself in his drug dealings only with Monsanto and McCoy and with them only in isolated transactions. (Baker Br. 27). However, there was testimony from which a jury could infer that the transactions were more than isolated and that Baker was, in fact, a member of the Barnes conspiracy. 143 The evidence revealed that Baker and Monsanto operated as partners within the Barnes organization. Informant Wooden testified that Monsanto had introduced Baker as his partner when they were discussing a large importation of heroin. (Tr. 5382). Baker and Monsanto cooperated on the December 29 sale of a half-kilogram of heroin to Fisher and Geronimo. (Tr. 2130-2150, 4292-4305). Geronimo saw Baker, Monsanto, and Fisher in the Harlem River Motors Garage office with stacks of money on the desk. On the same day, Monsanto was later seen handing packages of white powder to people in a limousine. Baker told Fisher and Geronimo to come back later because they were doing bigger deals at the moment. Subsequently, Fisher said that Baker was supposed to come with the package. 144 The connection to the Barnes conspiracy lies, in part, in the fact that it was Barnes who had directed Geronimo, who was trying to consummate a deal with Monsanto, to see Monsanto at the Harlem River Motors Garage at that time on December 29. Barnes said that Monsanto would be there for other reasons. (Tr. 2128-29). Combined with Fisher's statement that Barnes oversaw all transactions in the Garage, these facts created a solid foundation for the jury's conclusion that Baker was part of the Barnes conspiracy. Additional support can be found in Baker's use of Hoby Darling Leasing Corporation automobiles. Finally, the cooperation between Baker and other members of the Barnes organization is revealed by the evidence that on February 25, 1977, when Fisher and Diaz were trying to consummate a transaction with Baker at the Garage, McCoy said that Baker had been warned to stay away because there was a lot of police activity in the area. McCoy intimated that Barnes had warned Baker. Tape recordings made by the bug in the Garage on February 25th reveal that Barnes was in the Garage and was engaged in narcotics-related activity. 145 Thus, Baker was properly joined as a defendant. For the same reasons, the hearsay statements of his co-conspirators were properly admitted against Baker. 146 We affirm Baker's convictions on all counts.