Opinion ID: 1472494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination of Defendant Alice B. Todd.

Text: Counsel for the government sought to have Miss Todd testify on her cross-examination that the $221,351.44 which she reported to the Farm Loan Board as being on deposit in the First National Bank at Kansas City was not in fact so deposited, and then endeavored to compel her to answer yes or no as to whether said entry was a true or false one. This occurred: Q. When you reported to the Farm Loan Board that there was $221,000.00 odd dollars on deposit in the First National Bank of Kansas City, $221,351.44, that was not actually on deposit in the First National Bank of Kansas City, was it, Miss Todd? A. The amount was not actually on deposit in the First National Bank of Kansas City, on that date. Q. And it wasn't on this date that you made the report to the Board, was it? A. Probably not. Q. It wasn't when you made the report of November 24? A. I think not. The witness was unwilling to admit any false statement in the report or in the entry on the bank books, and after prolonged controversy between the witness and counsel for the government and after she had repeatedly been asked the question as to whether the entry she had spoken of as being put in the report by her of the deposit in the First National Bank was a true or false entry, she refusing to answer directly, this occurred: The Court: The witness can certainly answer if she drew up this report, whether the statement contained therein is true or false. Mr. Conrad: Exception please. (To which ruling of the court the defendants by their counsel then and there duly excepted at the time and still except.) Q. The court says for you to state whether this statement was true or false. The Court: It is one or the other. A. The statement is incorrect, based on the books. Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you whether the statement in the book was true or false. Answer it please. I insist on an answer. The Court: Answer the question, Miss Todd. Q. You were the secretary of the bank. A. The statement was incorrect. Mr. Dodds: The witness hasn't answered the question, may it please the court. The Court: Answer the question. A. May I ask Your Honor a question? The Court: Yes. A. After I have answered this question, may I explain it? The Court: Yes. Q. Answer it. Mr. Conrad: Exception. (To which ruling of the court the defendants by their counsel then and there excepted at the time and still except.) Q. Is the statement made therein true or false? A. The statement may be admitted to be false as reflecting the actual deposit  Q. Now, Miss Todd  Mr. Conrad (interrupting): We object to him interfering with the answer, now. The Court: Yes. A. But the bank held in its possession not only Mr. Cravens' check for the amount, but the collateral pledged to that check of value equal to the sum shown on deposit. In the District Court's thus permitting the government to force Miss Todd to admit the falsity of the statement contained in the report to the Federal Farm Loan Board, defendants contend that reversible error was committed, in that (a) the inquiry was without the scope of proper cross-examination; (b) it called for a conclusion, thus invading the province of the jury; (c) it related to a crime for which she was not indicted; and (d) Miss Todd was thus forced to incriminate herself in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. If the inquiry was proper cross-examination, there is nothing to the contention that defendant Todd was forced to incriminate herself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. For she had already taken the witness stand in her own behalf and waived her immunity under the Fifth Amendment. Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494, 46 S. Ct. 566, 70 L. Ed. 1054. The rule as to the limitation of cross-examination of a defendant who testifies is well settled in this circuit. The same limitation applies as to any other witness, and a defendant subjects himself to cross-examination as to the facts in issue inquired about in direct examination exactly the same as any other witness and to no greater extent. Harrold v. Oklahoma (C. C. A. 8) 169 F. 47, 17 Ann. Cas. 868; De Witt v. Skinner (C. C. A.) 232 F. 443; Tucker v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 5 F.(2d) 818; Gideon v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 52 F.(2d) 427; Salerno v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 61 F.(2d) 419, (opinion filed October 26, 1932); Clark v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 61 F.(2d) 695 (opinion filed October 20, 1932). Did this cross-examination bear on testimony given by her on direct examination? Miss Todd was the main witness for the defendants, and was examined at great length upon the direct examination. Her evidence covers nearly every phase of the numerous transactions involved. Mr. Cravens' examination was very brief in comparison. In fact his counsel in questioning him stated, the counts in this indictment from the first to the last have been covered by the testimony of Miss Todd. Miss Todd was asked on direct examination: Miss Todd, I want to ask you this question: Tell this jury whether you at any time ever made an entry on the books or took part in any kind or character of transaction involved in these counts or otherwise with any intent to defraud this bank out of a penny of money in any way whatsoever? She answered: I did not. She was asked: Do you know of your own personal knowledge of any act or anything done by Mr. Cravens, of the receipt of any money by him in reference to or from this bank with the intention in any way of depriving or defrauding this bank of a penny? She answered: I certainly do not. She was asked: Tell the jury whether or not you yourself, or of your own knowledge, there was ever an entry made upon the books of this bank at any time for the purpose of deceiving any person whomsoever. She answered: No, sir. Finally she was asked: Do you know of any entry having been made by any person, including Mr. Cravens, or his knowledge of any transaction which had for its purpose deceiving any individual, whether farm loan examiner or whomsoever he might be  of deceiving him in any respect whatsoever? She answered: I do not. This testimony on direct examination opened the door to a very wide cross-examination. The falsity of the statement in the report to the Federal Farm Loan Board had a very direct bearing, not only upon the issue of intention to deceive, but upon the falsity of the entries in the books of the land bank from which the statement in the report was made up, and which entries formed the direct basis of several of the counts in the indictment. It thus follows that defendant Todd was neither subjected to improper cross-examination nor forced to incriminate herself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is to be noted also that the privilege against self-incrimination was not raised at the trial. No objection to the testimony was made on that ground  hence the protection of the Fifth Amendment which is personal was waived and cannot now be urged. In re Knickerbocker Steamboat Co. (D. C.) 139 F. 713; United States v. Skinner (D. C.) 218 F. 870; United States v. Elton (D. C.) 222 F. 428; United States v. Hoyt (D. C. S. D. N. Y.) 53 F.(2d) 881; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 16 S. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819; Kolbrenner v. United States (C. C. A. 5) 11 F.(2d) 754; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 47 S. Ct. 302, 71 L. Ed. 560. Nor do we find error in the fact that the inquiry on cross-examination may have brought to light criminal conduct other than that for which defendants were indicted, the inquiry being logically relevant to the subject-matter of the direct examination. Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494, 46 S. Ct. 566, 70 L. Ed. 1054. The general rule as to proof of other crimes has been stated by this court many times. Thus we said in Cook v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 28 F.(2d) 730, 732: As a general rule, evidence of other crimes is inadmissible, but to this rule there are certain well-recognized exceptions. It does not apply where the evidence of another crime tends directly to prove the crime charged, and evidence which is relevant to defendant's guilt is not rendered inadmissible because it proves or tends to prove him guilty of another separate and distinct crime. It often happens that two distinct offenses are so inseparably connected as in the instant case that the proof of one necessarily involves proof of the other, and in such case on the prosecution for one, evidence proving it should not be excluded because it also proves the other. In Levy v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 35 F.(2d) 483, 485, this court said: The mere fact that the evidence in a chain of circumstances may show crimes other than the one for which the party is on trial is not sufficient to exclude the same. In Doyle v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 33 F. (2d) 265, 266, we pointed out: Three cases in this circuit  McMillan v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 27 F.(2d) 94; Anderson v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 404, and Cook v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 14 F.(2d) 833  have passed on this question. They hold that evidence of distinct offenses, independent of those charged in the indictment or information, is competent only where intent is an essential ingredient of the crime charged, except where they are so related to the main issue, or are part of the surrounding circumstances in respect to time and character, as to aid in its solution, and that considerable discretion is allowed the trial judge in deciding whether such evidence tends in some degree, at least, to corroborate the other evidence. In Caldwell v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 36 F.(2d) 742, the facts were just the reverse of the facts in the instant case, in that there the court admitted evidence of false entries in the books of the bank, for which the defendant was not on trial, as bearing on whether or not he had made a false entry in a report to the comptroller, for which he was on trial. At pages 744, 745 of 36 F.(2d) the court said: Complaint is made concerning the admission of evidence as to false entries in the sum of $120,000, in the books of the bank, 16 days prior to the false entry of the same amount in the report to the comptroller charged in the indictment. As a part of the transaction, the government had a perfect right to show that the defendant first falsified the books of the bank, and then falsified the report to the comptroller to correspond. This assignment is entirely without merit. Bettman v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 224 F. 819; Galbreath v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 257 F. 648; Astwood v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 1 F.(2d) 639; Arnold v. United States (C. C. A. 7) 7 F. (2d) 867, 871; Niederluecke v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 21 F.(2d) 511. The testimony of defendant Todd concerning the falsity of the statement in question was not rendered inadmissible for the reason that it tended to prove defendants guilty of another separate and distinct crime. The only remaining question in connection with the testimony of defendant Todd is whether it was error, as calling for a conclusion and thereby invading the province of the jury, to confine her to the words true or false in answering the question concerning the statement in the report to the Federal Farm Loan Board. In view of the entire record we do not deem this question of much importance, for it conclusively appears from the testimony that no prejudice could have resulted from her being compelled to answer the question, as she finally did, because she had fully and in detail explained all the facts and circumstances and had put her own interpretation upon the term false as used by her.