Opinion ID: 103352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Granting of New Trials to Some Defendants.

Text: Respondents contend that the trial court committed reversible error in granting new trials to some defendants and denying them to respondents. The court charged the jury that it could convict any of the defendants found to have been members of the combination and that it need not convict all or none. As has been noted, the jury found sixteen corporations and thirty individuals guilty. Thereafter the court discharged one corporation and ten individuals, and granted new trials to three corporations and fifteen individuals. Such action left the verdict standing as to only twelve corporations and five individuals. The trial court gave as its reason for granting some of the defendants a new trial its belief that they had not had an adequate separate consideration of their defense, in view of the fact that as to some of them direct evidence of participation was lacking or slight, and the circumstantial evidence viewed as a whole may well have obscured other facts and circumstances shown, in some cases, to be highly suggestive of innocence, and in all cases entitled to be considered and weighed. United States v. Standard Oil Co., (Indiana), 23 F. Supp. 937, 939. In denying the motions of respondents for a new trial it stated (p. 944) that there was evidence to go to the jury and to sustain its verdict as to every essential charge in the indictment as to them. [62] Respondents' argument runs as follows: The court charged the jury that it was the purpose and the power of the combination to raise prices which were material. Hence the fact that the jury found that the entire group possessed such power does not necessarily mean that the jury would have found that respondents acting alone possessed such power. Since the jury did not consider that issue, it is argued that denial of a new trial to respondents violates their constitutional right to a jury trial. And in support of their contention, respondents insist that Standard of Indiana alone (one of the defendants granted a new trial) possessed such power as would make it impossible for them to raise prices without its agreement and cooperation. Respondents' argument does not focus sharply the basic and essential elements of the offense and of the instructions to the jury. As we have stated above, the offense charged in this indictment was proved once it was established that any of the defendants conspired to fix prices through the buying programs and that those programs caused or contributed to the price rise. Power of the combination to fix prices was therefore but a conclusion from the fact that the combination did fix prices. Hence in that posture of the case, the issue here is whether or not the finding of the jury that the buying programs affected prices was necessarily dependent on the participation in those programs of all who were convicted. Obviously it was not. The order granting new trials in no manner impeached or questioned the evidence as to the total spot market purchases made by all companies (whether defendants, co-conspirators or others). Cf. Bartkus v. United States, 21 F.2d 425. In their efforts to place a floor under the spot markets respondents assuredly received benefits and assistance from the purchases made by other companies. And the amount of benefit and assistance received did not necessarily depend on whether or not those other companies were co-conspirators. Market manipulators commonly obtain assistance from the activities of the innocent as well as from those of their allies. The fact that they may capitalize on the purchases of others is no more significant than the fact that they may gain direct or collateral benefits from market trends, bullish factors or fortuitous circumstances. And the mere fact that those circumstances might have changed and that Standard of Indiana, say, might have substantially impaired the effect of the buying programs on prices by a change in its retail policies was as irrelevant as was the chance that the Connally Act might have been repealed. The effect of the concerted activities was not rebutted by the fact that changes in events might have destroyed that effect. Nor did the case against respondents automatically fall when three of the corporate defendants [63] were awarded a new trial. We have here a situation quite different from that where the participation of those to whom a new trial was granted or against whom the judgment of conviction was reversed was necessary for the existence of the crime charged. See Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112; Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82; King v. Plummer [1902], 2 K.B. 339. In this case the crime was not indivisible (cf. Queen v. Gompertz, 9 A. & E. (N.S.) 824; Feder v. United States, 257 F. 694) in the sense that the existence of a conspiracy under the Sherman Act was necessarily dependent on the cooperation of the other defendants with respondents. Nor was the case submitted to the jury on the assumption that the participation of any of the corporations which were granted new trials was indispensable to the finding of a conspiracy among the rest. As we have seen, the court charged that the jury could convict any of the defendants found to have been members of the combination and that it need not convict all or none. It was the existence of a combination and the participation in it of all or some of the defendants which were important, not the identity of each and every participant. A conspiracy under the Sherman Act may embrace two or more individuals or corporations. Conviction of some need not await the apprehension and conviction of all. The erroneous conviction of one does not necessarily rebut the finding that the others participated. The theory of the charge to the jury was not that the defendants must be convicted, if at all, as a body; rather the issue of guilt was distributive; the identity of all the co-conspirators was irrelevant. In a Sherman Act case, as in other conspiracy cases, the grant of a new trial to some defendants and its denial to others is not per se reversible error. After the jury's verdict has been set aside as respects some of the alleged co-conspirators, the remaining ones cannot seize on that action as grounds for the granting of a new trial to them, unless they can establish that such action was so clearly prejudicial to them that the denial of their motions constituted a plain abuse of discretion. See Dufour v. United States, 37 App. D.C. 497, 510-511; State v. Christianson, 131 Minn. 276, 280; 154 N.W. 1095; Commonwealth v. Bruno, 324 Pa. 236, 248; 188 A. 320; People v. Kuland, 266 N.Y. 1; 193 N.E. 439; Browne v. United States, 145 F. 1. There is a complete lack of any showing of abuse of discretion here, for no prejudice has been established. Hence this case falls within the well-established rule that neither this Court nor the Circuit Court of Appeals will review the action of a federal trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial for error of fact, since such action is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474. Certain exceptions have been noted, such as instances where the trial court has erroneously excluded from consideration matters which were appropriate to a decision on the motion. Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., supra, p. 483. But there are no such circumstances here. No iota of evidence has been adduced that the trial court in denying respondents' motions failed to take into consideration the effect of the buying programs on gasoline prices in the Mid-Western area. In fact it seems apparent that the trial court considered that issue and ruled thereon adversely to respondents. It concluded in substance that whoever may have been all the members of the conspiracy, there was ample evidence to go to the jury on the nature and effect of these programs. Certainly, denial of a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence would not be subject to review. Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, 61-62; J.W. Bishop Co. v. Shelhorse, 141 F. 643, 648; O'Donnell v. New York Transp. Co., 187 F. 109, 110. In substance no more than that is involved here.