Opinion ID: 420816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The mistried appellants: Hornsby, Holliday and Tony Mulherin

Text: 40 Appellants Hornsby, Holliday and Tony Mulherin seek to bar retrial of the mistried counts on various theories of double jeopardy. The district court denied their motions to dismiss but found their contentions not frivolous. We agree that the double jeopardy claims are not frivolous and find the district court's order appealable insofar as it concerns double jeopardy. See U.S. v. Dunbar, 611 F.2d 985 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 926, 100 S.Ct. 3022, 65 L.Ed.2d 1120 (1980). 41 a. Double jeopardy: one or two crimes 42 Hornsby and Holliday ask us to hold that double jeopardy bars their retrial on the firearms conspiracy count. They contend there was only one conspiracy, an agreement to trade firearms for drugs, that the jury made a determination on this one offense by finding them not guilty on the drug conspiracy count and thus retrial on the firearms conspiracy count would put them twice in jeopardy for the same offense. They rely primarily on U.S. v. Marable, 578 F.2d 151 (5th Cir.1978) and Braverman v. U.S., 317 U.S. 49, 63 S.Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). In both cases the court concluded that the one agreement involved could not be split into two conspiracy offenses. But in Marable the one agreement concerned cocaine and heroin and the government was trying to convict the defendants twice under the same statute--once for a heroin conspiracy and once for a cocaine conspiracy. In Braverman the separate counts charged conspiracy to violate different provisions of the internal revenue laws. Again the same conspiracy statute was being used twice by the prosecution. 43 Whether a single agreement can be treated as two offenses is a question of statutory interpretation. Where Congress intends to impose multiple punishment the double jeopardy clause is not violated by treating the single agreement as two offenses. As Marable states: 44 [T]he statutes upon which prosecution rests distinguish this case from situations in which the defendant asserts a double jeopardy claim where the government has charged conspiracies under separate special conspiracy statutes. The Double Jeopardy Clause imposes few limits on the legislative power to define offenses. 45 578 F.2d at 154-55 n. 1. 46 Here the appellants were charged under two separate conspiracy statutes, the drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. 846 and the firearms conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 371. In Albernaz v. U.S., 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), the Supreme Court held that a single conspiratorial agreement violated both the statutory ban on conspiracy to import drugs and the ban on conspiracy to distribute drugs. The court concluded that the two counts were not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Id. at 344 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. at 1145 n. 3. 47 The two statutes here contain even more differences; 21 U.S.C. Section 846 does not require proof of an overt act while 18 U.S.C. Section 371 does require proof of an overt act in furtherance of conspiracy. We conclude that Congress intended these statutes to define, prohibit, and punish two separate offenses, and thus retrial of appellants is not barred by the double jeopardy clause. See Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) (if there is any difference in the elements to be proved, the two charges are not the same offense). That much of the same evidence served double duty in proving the two offenses charged is of no consequence. U.S. v. Pearson, 667 F.2d 12, 15 (5th Cir.1982) (Unit B) (per curiam); U.S. v. Cowart, 595 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir.1979). 48 b. Collateral estoppel and the entrapment defense 49 Hornsby, Holliday and Tony Mulherin maintain the government is collaterally estopped from contesting their claims of entrapment and thus retrial is barred. Their argument is that the jury, by finding them not guilty on some counts necessarily found them entrapped on those counts since no other defense was asserted; if they were entrapped as to one count they were entrapped as to the mistried counts. 50 Collateral estoppel means that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment the issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in a future lawsuit. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). In a criminal case it is a protection embodied in the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. U.S. v. Henry, 661 F.2d 894, 897 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992, 102 S.Ct. 1619, 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982). The concept is distinct from double jeopardy in the sense that: 51 [T]he traditional bar of double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of the crime itself, whereas collateral estoppel, in a more modest fashion, simply forbids the government from relitigating certain facts in order to establish the fact of the crime. 52 U.S. v. Mock, 604 F.2d 341, 343-44 (5th Cir.1979). 53 Collateral estoppel may affect a later criminal prosecution in two distinct ways: 54 (1) it may completely bar a subsequent prosecution; or (2) although the subsequent prosecution may proceed, it may operate to bar the introduction or argumentation of certain facts necessarily established in a prior proceeding. 55 U.S. v. Caucci, 635 F.2d 441, 448 (5th Cir.) (Unit B), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831, 102 S.Ct. 128, 70 L.Ed.2d 108 (1981). We are concerned here only with the bar aspect. 5 The test of whether collateral estoppel bars later prosecution is whether the jury could not have rationally based its verdict on any other issue than the one the appellants seek to foreclose. U.S. v. Lee, 622 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981). That the jury may have based its verdict on this issue is not enough; appellants have the burden to show that the issue of entrapment was necessarily determined in their favor in the former trial. See id.; U.S. v. Giarratano, 622 F.2d 153, 155-56 (5th Cir.1980). 56 Deciding whether collateral estoppel applies to the entrapment issue here requires that we examine the various counts, the testimony, and the jury's verdict to determine as best we can what makes the jury's verdict coherent. See U.S. v. Larkin, 605 F.2d 1360, 1369 (5th Cir.1979), modified on rehearing, 611 F.2d 585, cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939, 100 S.Ct. 2160, 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980). We should make this determination in a realistic, rational and practical way, bearing in mind all the circumstances. Lee, 622 F.2d at 790. The following chart outlines the charges against the three appellants and the judgments entered based on the verdicts returned by the jury. 57 INDICTMENT 181-26 (Middle District of Florida) 6 Count Appellant Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Conspiracy to distribute and to possess A. T. Mulherin Mistrial with intent to distribute marijuana and Hornsby Not guilty cocaine Holliday Not guilty 2. Conspiracy to violate certain provisions of A. T. Mulherin Mistrial the National Firearms Act Hornsby Mistrial Holliday Mistrial 3. April 5, 1981 possession of approx. 16 A. T. Mulherin Mistrial unregistered machine guns Hornsby Mistrial 4. April 5, 1981 possession of approx. 16 A. T. Mulherin Mistrial machine guns not identified by serial Hornsby Mistrial number 5. April 5, 1981 possession of approx. 501 A. T. Mulherin Mistrial unregistered silencers. Hornsby Mistrial INDICTMENT 181-37 (Southern District of Georgia) Count Appellant Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Feb. 12, 1981 possession of one Holliday Not guilty unregistered machine gun Hornsby Not guilty 2. Feb. 12, 1981 transfer of one machine gun Holliday Not guilty without written application Hornsby Not guilty 3. Feb. 23, 1981 possession of 10 .22 calibre Holliday Mistrial silencers 4. Feb. 23, 1981 transfer of 10 .22 calibre Holliday Mistrial silencers without written application 5. March 14, 1981 possession of one A. T. Mulherin Not guilty unregistered machine gun Hornsby Not guilty Holliday Not guilty 6. March 14, 1981 transfer of one machine gun A. T. Mulherin Not guilty without written application Hornsby Not guilty Holliday Not guilty 7. March 14, 1981 possession of nine .22 A. T. Mulherin Not guilty calibre unregistered silencers Hornsby Mistrial Holliday Mistrial 8. March 14, 1981 transfer of nine .22 calibre A. T. Mulherin Mistrial silencers without written application Hornsby Mistrial Holliday Mistrial 9. March 28, 1981 possession of two A. T. Mulherin Mistrial unregistered aluminum silencers Hornsby Not guilty 10. Feb. (sic) 28, 1981 transfer of two A. T. Mulherin Mistrial aluminum silencers without written Hornsby Notguilty application 58 On the conspiracy counts, a rational jury could have determined that Hornsby and Holliday were predisposed to engage in the firearms side of the deal but that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were predisposed to engage in the drug side of the deal. Alternatively, a rational jury could have concluded that there was a reasonable doubt whether Hornsby and Holliday voluntarily agreed to the drug deal but did voluntarily enter the firearms deal. 59 The evidence showed that the deal initially made was firearms for money. Peacock had offered to trade drugs but Hornsby and Holliday preferred cash. Later Peacock told them he had cash problems and offered immediate payment in drugs or an indefinite wait for cash payment. Hornsby and Holliday had already invested time and money in the firearms deal; they could have concluded that having Tony Mulherin and his cohorts distribute the offered drugs was their only reasonable expectation of getting paid in the circumstances. 60 The evidence also showed that Hornsby and Holliday were not personally knowledgeable about drugs and drug trafficking. It was Tony Mulherin who said he knew people who could test and distribute the drugs and introduced those people into the scheme. It was Mulherin who kept books on the expected drug distribution and dispatched Moore with a shopping list for drug paraphernalia. Hornsby's and Holliday's passive roles in the drug side of the deal sharply contrast with their active participation in the firearms transactions. 61 Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the Georgia indictment concerned the possession and transfer of M-2 rifles. Counts 7 and 8 concerned silencers delivered to Peacock and ATF agent Gleffe at the same time an M-2 was delivered. If, as appellants contend, the jury necessarily found them entrapped as to counts 5 and 6, it would be difficult to understand why the jury did not also find all appellants entrapped on counts 7 and 8. Our examination of the evidence reveals a more coherent explanation of the verdict. 62 The evidence showed that M-2's are World War II vintage guns. An M-2 can be produced from an M-1, a semi-automatic weapon, by installing a set of parts that are readily available in the marketplace. 7 Cross examination of the ATF's firearms expert focused on the basis of his opinion that the M-2's were in fact fully automatic weapons. The expert had not actually test fired the M-2's to verify they were fully automatic, nor had he dismantled each to determine that it had all necessary parts installed to make it fully automatic rather than semi-automatic. Rather, he based his conclusion that the weapons were fully automatic on a visual examination of the weapons and their mechanical action. In view of the vintage of the weapons and the lack of evidence of higher reliability, a rational jury could have concluded that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these particular weapons were firearms within the meaning of the National Firearms Act. A rational jury could have found the expert's testimony about the operational characteristics of the counts 7 and 8 silencers more convincing since it was based on decibel measurements of sound reduction obtained by test firing weapons with and without the devices. 63 As for the jury's acquittal of Tony Mulherin on Count 7, a rational jury could have concluded that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mulherin possessed the silencers involved but did aid or abet their transfer. On March 14, Mulherin drove Hornsby, Peacock, and Gleffe out to a fishing camp to test fire some weapons. They stopped on the way and Hornsby telephoned Holliday telling Holliday to bring the silencers out to the fishing camp. Mulherin knew the substance of the phone call. Holliday arrived at the camp with the silencers and gave them to Peacock and Gleffe. Peacock and Gleffe put the silencers in Mulherin's car and made a partial payment to Hornsby for the goods received. Afterwards Mulherin drove Peacock and Gleffe to the airport. Six days later Mulherin began financing Hornsby and Holliday's silencer production. 64 The silencers involved in counts 9 and 10 came from a different source. Hornsby and Holliday were making brass silencers. Tony Mulherin told Peacock and Gleffe he had a source who could make aluminum silencers. Hornsby was present during this conversation. Peacock and Gleffe indicated they were interested so Mulherin took them to see his silencer source. Hornsby went along with them. Peacock and Gleffe received two silencers from the source. No money was exchanged. A rational jury could have concluded that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hornsby was more than a curious observer at this transaction. 65 We cannot conclude that the only rational basis for the verdict on any of the firearms counts was a finding that appellants were entrapped. The district court did not err in determining that collateral estoppel does not bar retrial of these appellants on the mistried counts. 66 c. Government misconduct 67 Appellants Hornsby, Holliday and Tony Mulherin also seek to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds based on their assertions of prosecutorial misconduct and outrageous government conduct in the investigation. Double jeopardy does not bar their retrial. Any link between the alleged government misconduct and the jury's inability to reach a verdict is too attenuated to be more than mere speculation. Absent some cause and effect relationship between the court's declaration of mistrial and the alleged government misconduct, the general rule is that the genuine inability of a jury to agree on a verdict provides manifest necessity for a mistrial and reprosecution is not barred by double jeopardy. U.S. v. Wright, 662 F.2d 792, 794-95 (5th Cir. 1980); see U.S. v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 [96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267] (1976). 68 On retrial of these defendants the effect, if any, of alleged government misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct on their possible convictions on grounds other than double jeopardy is a matter for the district court to decide. See Hart v. U.S., 565 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1978); Dupart v. U.S., 541 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1976). 69 d. Vindictive prosecution; speedy trial 70 Appellants Hornsby, Holliday and Tony Mulherin were initially indicted in the Middle District of Florida with a drug conspiracy count, a firearms conspiracy count, and three substantive firearms counts. After they received a change of venue to the Southern District of Georgia, the government sought and obtained a second indictment from that district containing 11 more substantive firearms counts. 8 Appellants contend that the second indictment should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(b) and also because of prosecutorial vindictiveness. 71 Neither Hornsby, Holliday nor Tony Mulherin stands convicted of any crime and thus their appeals are interlocutory. See U.S. v. Wilson, 440 F.2d 1103, 1104 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S.Ct. 210, 30 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972) (in a criminal case final judgment means sentence; the sentence is the judgment); Gilmore v. U.S., 264 F.2d 44 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 994, 79 S.Ct. 1126, 3 L.Ed.2d 982 (1959) (no immediate appeal where district court ordered a new trial since there was no sentence to be appealed). 72 The district court's order denying appellant's motions to dismiss the second indictment for government vindictiveness is not an appealable interlocutory order. See U.S. v. Gregory, 656 F.2d 1132, 1135 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B) (a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness does not seek to protect a right of such a special nature that it presents a compelling need for immediate review). To be reviewable the appellants must show that the charges in the second indictment were groundless and without any reasonable prospect of conviction. Id. at 1136. They have failed to do so. Appellants' speedy trial claims also are outside the scope of an interlocutory appeal. See U.S. v. Stricklin, 591 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 963, 100 S.Ct. 449, 62 L.Ed.2d 375 (1979). 73 AFFIRMED.