Opinion ID: 373883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Admission of Statements of Coconspirators

Text: 39 A review of the record shows that the trial judge did not err in the way he handled the statements of coconspirators. In fact, the judge went further than necessary to insure that the individual defendants would not be prejudiced by coconspirators' statements. Prior to trial, a hearing was held on motions to suppress evidence and, at that time, the district court made searching inquiry as to evidence the government was going to introduce to establish a conspiracy. 40 Not only did the trial judge inquire as to what evidence the government intended to introduce, he had a DEA agent take the stand and outline the government's evidence on conspiracy and allowed the agent to be cross-examined. Aware of his responsibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) and United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1977), he ruled that the Petrozziello standard had been met. The court, however, went further than that. During the trial, it carefully instructed the jury according to the requirements of United States v. Honneus, 508 F.2d 566, 569-70 (1st Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 421 U.S. 948, 95 S.Ct. 1677, 44 L.Ed.2d 101 (1975). While neither the pretrial determination nor the Honneus instructions was necessary, See United States v. Martorano, 557 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 922, 98 S.Ct. 1484, 55 L.Ed.2d 515 (1978), this procedure did not prejudice the defendants. As we said in Petrozziello, The added layer of fact-finding may not be needed, Weinstein's Evidence P 104(05), but it can seldom prejudice a defendant. United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d at 23. Moreover, the court's charge to the jury directed them to view the evidence as to each defendant separately. 7 41 We find that the defendants were not prejudiced by the way the district court handled the statements of coconspirators.III. The Jencks Act Issue 42 This issue arises through the failure of the government to turn over statements of four government witnesses given to a grand jury in the Northern District of Indiana which subsequently indicted Santos and Izzi for selling heroin. The sale, already detailed, was to Somosa in East Chicago, Indiana, on November 8 and 9, 1976. The four witnesses were Somosa, Rios, and DEA Agents Jorge and Jimenez. The grand jury testimony of the witnesses was given prior to the trial on the conspiracy charge in Puerto Rico. However, when the government, pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, furnished the defendants with a number of statements and reports made by witnesses at the start of the trial in Puerto Rico, the grand jury statements of the four witnesses were not included. This omission came to light after the conspiracy trial had ended when Santos and Izzi were brought to trial in the Northern District of Indiana, 8 and the Jencks Act material furnished them there contained the grand jury testimony. Upon examination, it was found to vary in some degree from the witnesses' courtroom testimony in Puerto Rico. 43 Although the prosecutor in this case and the case in Northern Indiana was the same person, it seems clear that the failure to disclose was negligent rather than deliberate and the defendants do not seriously contend otherwise. 44 After a full hearing on defendants' motion for a new trial, the district court ruled that the withheld testimony was not exculpatory and, therefore, production was not mandated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). It also found that the inconsistencies would not have made any difference at all in the outcome of this trial. 45 The withheld testimony and the way it varies from the courtroom testimony is summarized as follows. Agent Jimenez testified before the grand jury that, on November 8, Somosa handed him a pound of heroin and a pound of cocaine. He testified at trial that he had been given two samples, one of cocaine and the other of heroin. Jimenez testified before the grand jury that Cuevas was at Frankie's Lounge on November 9. There was no such testimony at the trial. Defendants claim that this could have been used to impeach the credibility of Somosa and Jimenez, both of whom testified as to what happened inside and outside of the lounge on November 8 and 9. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the government stated that the grand jury testimony in this respect was a mistake and that, in reality, it was Cuevas' driver, not Cuevas himself, who was in the lounge. 46 Rios testified before the grand jury that he did not know the last name of Santos, knowing him merely as Frankie. At trial, he testified that he had been introduced to Frankie Santos as Frankie Rubiroso. Rios stated in his grand jury testimony that he did not recall the date on which he flew to New York City in May of 1976. At trial, he testified as to the exact date of the flight. The government pointed out at the post-trial hearing that, prior to testifying at the trial, Rios has been shown the airplane tickets to refresh his memory as to the date. In answer to questions before the grand jury, Rios said that the heroin picked up in New York weighed about seven or eight pounds. On cross-examination during the trial, he gave the weight of the packages as twenty pounds. 47 It is obvious that the district court was correct in ruling that the grand jury testimony was not exculpatory under the Brady rule. What is involved here are minor variations between two sets of inculpatory statements. There is nothing in the grand jury testimony that would tend to exculpate or reduce the penalty as to any of the defendants. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 88, 83 S.Ct. at 1197. 48 The variances could, of course, be the basis for an attempt to impeach the witnesses, which is the reason for the Jencks Act. The question, therefore, is whether the negligent failure to turn over this testimony to defense counsel is grounds for a new trial. We have found no case holding that an inadvertent or negligent failure to furnish Jencks Act material is Per se grounds for a new trial. 49 The Supreme Court has held that the harmless error doctrine must be strictly applied in Jencks Act cases. Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 111 n.21, 96 S.Ct. 1338, 1348 n.21, 47 L.Ed.2d 603 (1976); Campbell v. United States, 373 U.S. 487, 497 n.14, 83 S.Ct. 1356, 1362 n.14, 10 L.Ed.2d 501 (1963). Our approach has been to determine whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the government's failure to disclose. 50 Principe is wrong, however, insofar as he insists that under 18 U.S.C. § 3500(d) any failure to disclose, no matter how harmless or innocent, requires striking the witness' testimony or a mistrial. . . . The district court was entitled to conclude that the government's conduct fell short of being so flagrant as to warrant a mistrial regardless of prejudice, and, further that Principe was not materially prejudiced by the belated disclosure. 51 United States v. Principe, 499 F.2d 1135, 1139 (1st Cir. 1974). See also United States v. McGovern, 499 F.2d 1140, 1143 (1st Cir. 1974) (since late delivery of Jencks Act material did not prejudice defense and was not of such magnitude as to suggest bad faith by the government, there was no ground for reversal); United States v. Sharpe, 452 F.2d 1117, 1119-20 (1st Cir. 1971) (defendant failed to show prejudice as a result of government's inadvertent failure to turn over two of five pages of Jencks Act material). In a case involving an inadvertent or negligent failure to turn over tapes, the Second Circuit said, The question, then, is whether the defense was so greatly prejudiced by the unavailability of the recording at trial as to require the imposition of sanctions against the government. It held that it was not so prejudiced. United States v. Miranda, 526 F.2d 1319, 1328-29 (2d Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 821, 97 S.Ct. 69, 50 L.Ed.2d 82 (1976). 52 Our examination of the trial transcript convinces us that the light caliber of the impeachment ammunition furnished by the grand jury testimony would not have dented the well buttressed evidence of the government. The failure of the government to furnish the grand jury testimony did not result in any prejudice to the defendants. 53 The conviction as to defendant Izzi is reversed. The convictions of the other defendants are affirmed.