Opinion ID: 413472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Court's Refusal to Admit Defense Testimony

Text: 22 It is well settled that a district court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Brannon, 616 F.2d 413 (9 Cir.1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 908, 100 S.Ct. 2993, 64 L.Ed.2d 858 (1980). With respect to most of the alleged errors we have no difficulty in concluding that there was no abuse of the court's discretion. We are concerned, however, with the rejection of the testimony of Danny Mack Martin that he planned the robbery, combined with the admission of evidence of three prior bank robberies committed by Lehman showing similarities to the robbery in this case. 23 Pursuant to Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence, the district court permitted the Government, over defendant's objection, to present evidence of three bank robberies committed in 1975 and 1976. As the Government states, the evidence was admitted to show identity and opportunity for common scheme or plan. The court applied the standards set forth in Parker v. United States, 400 F.2d 248, 252 (9 Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1097, 89 S.Ct. 892, 21 L.Ed.2d 789 (1969). In Parker the court held that, Proof of conduct similar to that charged, which is peculiar, unique, or bizarre, is admissible to tend to prove identity. The court noted further that [p]roof of other crimes has likewise been held admissible to show a common scheme, plan, design, system.... The record indicates that the trial judge carefully considered each prior robbery and its similarities to the robbery in this case. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. 24 Lehman offered evidence to show that Danny Mack Martin had planned the robbery. Prior to trial, Lehman moved for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(c)(5), to obtain Martin's presence as a witness at the trial. In denying the issuance of a subpoena, the trial judge said in part: I can't see any relevance to that testimony of Mr. Martin, so I am going to deny that subpoena. 25 Crenshaw was called as a witness for the defense. During direct examination, counsel asked him if he knew Danny Mack Martin. Counsel for the Government objected to any questions about Mr. Martin. The objection was sustained. Appellant argues that Crenshaw's testimony that Martin was the person who set up the robbery was relevant and should have been permitted. 26 Finally, at the conclusion of the trial, Lehman offered an affidavit of Danny Mack Martin, in which Martin took credit for planning the bank robbery and stated that Mr. Crenshaw and another man named Gordon robbed the Belfair bank, and to the best of my knowledge, Dennis Lehman had nothing whatsoever to do with the Belfair bank robbery. The affidavit was excluded as irrelevant. 5 27 The Government argues that Lehman was charged with aiding and abetting 6 the robbery, not its planning, and that the Government's proof at trial established that the defendant's role in the robbery was piloting the getaway plane used by the two men who actually robbed the bank. The Government relies upon the court's identification of the very simple issue in the case, i.e., The defendant either flew that airplane out of Kitsap County or he didn't. The Government claims that it never sought to prove that the defendant masterminded or planned the robbery and notes that the district court reached the conclusion that it did not matter who planned the robbery. 7 28 The indictment did not specify the manner in which Lehman aided and abetted the robbery; nor was the term limited in any way in the court's instructions to the jury. The court properly instructed the jury: 29 In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that the accused willfully associate himself in some way with the criminal venture, and willfully participate in it as he would in something he wishes to bring about; that is to say, that he willfully seek by some act or omission of his to make the criminal venture succeed. [Emphasis added]. 30 This would include participation in the planning of the crime. 31 On appeal the Government would draw a distinction between evidence of similarities between this and prior robberies to show a common plan and evidence to show participation in the plan of this particular robbery. Unfortunately, however, counsel for the Government did not recognize this distinction in his argument to the jury. At the outset of an extended argument detailing similarities between the robbery in this case and the prior robberies committed by Lehman, counsel said: 32 The reason I am going to give you the evidence about the bank robbery is because that shows the similarity between this bank robbery and Mr. Lehman's MO, the way he robs banks, it shows that there was a particularly unique MO used, and Mr. Lehman was the man who was behind it. 33 In denying a motion for acquittal at the close of the Government's case, the court responded to Lehman's counsel in part as follows: 34 In view of the prior acts and conduct, one of which is identical, committed by your client, [the jury] can very well draw the inference, a reasonable inference that he was not only there, but he planned it. They can draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence before them, and there it is. So I don't think there is any question they have proved a prima facie case, it is there, and the jury could believe it very well that he was not only there, he probably planned it, based on the evidence they have before them. 35 The jury could reasonably have inferred and concluded from the evidence of the prior bank robberies, the argument of counsel, the instructions, and comments of the trial judge that Lehman was guilty of aiding and abetting Crenshaw and Gordon because he planned the robbery. 36 We recognize that a motion for a subpoena to produce a witness pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, see, e.g., United States v. Martin, 567 F.2d 849, 853 (9 Cir.1977), and that the defendant must make a satisfactory showing ... that the presence of the witness is necessary to an adequate defense. In view of the trial court's initial conclusion that the question of who planned the robbery was not an issue in the case, the rejection of the motion for a subpoena, standing alone, might well be within the sound discretion of the trial court. However, after the Government had produced evidence from which the court concluded that the jury might reasonably infer that Lehman planned the robbery, appellant twice offered evidence that Martin did in fact plan the robbery. 37 This court recognized in United States v. Brannon, supra, 616 F.2d at 418, that A defendant is entitled to prove his innocence by showing that someone else committed the crime. We concluded under the facts of that case, however, that the district court had not abused its discretion in excluding certain photographs of a third person, noting that a court may exclude relevant evidence if the evidence is likely to confuse the issues or mislead the jury. Id. at 418. 38 The Government contends that the evidence here was irrelevant and, if relevant, was likely to confuse the issues and mislead the jury. The evidence of Martin's participation in planning the robbery was rejected as irrelevant on the ground that the question of who planned the robbery was not at issue and the simple issue was whether or not Lehman flew the plane out of Kitsap County. As noted above, however, the evidence was by no means limited to that relating to the flight and its comparison with the prior robberies. Rather the Government presented extensive evidence comparing in minute detail the three prior robberies committed by Lehman and the robbery at issue here, and counsel for the Government devoted a substantial part of his argument to this comparison. 8 39 The court might properly have concluded that the evidence regarding Martin's participation was irrelevant if the issues had been limited as initially suggested. But after the Government presented proof from which the court concluded that the jury might reasonably infer that Lehman planned the robbery, Lehman should have been permitted to introduce evidence to rebut that inference. The jury might have concluded that Lehman was guilty because he planned the robbery, whether or not he was the pilot of the getaway plane.