Opinion ID: 349992
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Milligan and Dunn

Text: 18 There was absolutely no direct evidence tying Milligan or Dunn to the computer transactions. As to Dunn, the prosecution admits that there was little quantitative evidence implicating Dunn in any aspect of the case, but it argues that this is offset by the quality of the evidence. We find the asserted incriminating evidence to be non-existent and therefore lacking both quantity and quality. Virtually the same is true as to Milligan. 19 In this state of affairs, the prosecution obviously believed it necessary to go beyond the computer transactions in order to raise a jury issue as to Shinafelt, Mandeville, Dunn, and Milligan; therefore, evidence connected with other transactions, involving buoys and transformers, was presented by the prosecution and admitted over vigorous objections.B. THE BUOYS AND TRANSFORMERS. 20 There were two sets of transactions involving oceanographic buoys, one occurring in 1973 and the other in 1975, as well as one set of transactions concerning large electric transformers. None of these transactions in any way involved any of the principal figures in the computer transactions, namely, Zeligs, Geiger, Hillman, or Humphries. 1. Buoys: 1975 21 Shinafelt and Dunn leased a warehouse in Oceanside, California, 11 under fictitious names. 12 The lease was for a two-year term beginning in June, 1975, several days after the lease on the Escondido warehouse was terminated. No connections between this warehouse and Mandeville's warehouse in Escondido were established except that on May 29, 1975, Mandeville transported a load of lumber, using a rented truck, from the latter warehouse to the former. 22 At various times, oceanographic buoys were observed inside the warehouse in Oceanside, and Mandeville, Dunn, and Shinafelt were observed to be inside. Mandeville did welding work on the buoys. On one day, Mandeville, Dunn, and Shinafelt cut stencils, including one for Turant Leasing. Also, steel tank heads were ordered by someone driving a white Mercedes, like that owned by Shinafelt, and were picked up by someone driving a black Pantera, like that owned by Dunn. 13 23 In July, 1975, Dunn arranged for air cargo containers to be built to house the buoys. Mandeville picked up these containers when they were ready. In addition, during this same month, Mandeville acquired some military duffel bags. At one point, Mandeville took one of these bags to a storage facility and weighed it. When the buoys were eventually cut open, duffel bags were found inside, laden with sand. 24 Dunn applied for a customs carnet 14 for the buoys under the name of Turant Leasing. The carnet application noted anticipated shipment of six buoys to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Lebanon, at the time of these events, was not a country concerned in the carnet program. A customs official specializing in carnets noted that such a carnet would nonetheless be useful in exporting merchandise from Lebanon. This testimony, however, was of doubtful relevance absent any showing that the buoys were intended for shipment to or through Lebanon. In any event, the carnet was never perfected and the buoys were never exported, having been seized at the Oceanside warehouse, along with duffel bags, sand, and all. 15 2. Buoys: 1973 25 The only evidence with respect to the earlier, 1973, buoy transaction was scanty in the extreme and wholly fails to confirm the prosecution's repeated suggestions that it involved smuggling. A carnet application was filed by two of the defendants, Shinafelt and Dunn, as representatives of Oceanographic Leasing. 26 In any case there is no showing of what happened to these buoys, although it may be inferred that they were returned to the United States. Nor was there a showing of any significant similarity, apart from the fact that they involved buoys and a carnet, with the 1975 buoy transaction, let alone the computer or transformer transactions. 3. Transformers 27 The 1975 transaction involving the transformers apparently never took place. Dunn, Shinafelt, and possibly Milligan seemingly intended to ship two large transformers 16 to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. 17 The services of some freight forwarders were engaged, it being represented that the shipment was for purposes of experimentation only and that the transformers were to be returned to the United States. 28 The transformer transactions were carried out almost entirely under names that were impossible, apparently, to trace to any individual. One fictitious name listed as a reference with a phone answering service was that of Dunn. The person connected with the service stated that she recognized both Shinafelt and Dunn as persons with whom she had dealt. 29 C. MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCE. 30 Evidence as to alleged participation of Zeligs, Hillman, Geiger, or Humphries in the buoy and transformer operations was non-existent. In an apparent attempt to intertwine the various alleged complicitors, the prosecution introduced evidence that Shinafelt, Dunn, Milligan, and Mandeville had been acquaintances since junior high school days and that they met together at the Dunn household periodically. An attempt was also made to locate the main planning headquarters of the entire series of operations at Shinafelt's ranch in Bonsall, California, and the presence at this ranch of Milligan, Dunn, Milligan's girl friend, and others was established. A like attempt was made to locate the main operating headquarters at the Escondido and Oceanside warehouses. Finally, the prosecution produced an elaborate analysis of common telephone facilities and answering services used by various of the individuals involved and perhaps dozens of others. 31