Opinion ID: 387921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the indictment and the enterprise proofs

Text: 148 The preceding sections of this opinion were written following an en banc hearing at which the sole issue argued by attorneys for the appellants was their insistence that the panel opinion which had been set aside by en banc vote should be adopted by the en banc court for the reason that Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1976), should be interpreted as requiring charge and proof of an ostensibly legitimate enterprise. Judge Merritt, who wrote the majority panel opinion which had taken that position in reversing the District Court verdicts in this case, has now in his dissent relegated the statutory interpretation issue to last rather than first place. 149 The main emphasis of the dissent appears to us to be the following: There is no proof whatever that six of the defendants Elkins, Carter, Sutton, Holmes, Rankin, and Craven had knowledge of the stolen merchandise, burglary, fencing and mail fraud activities. There is not a word or a line in the record from which it could be inferred that these six defendants agreed, intended to conduct, or participated in an enterprise engaged in burglary, fencing and mail fraud. These two sentences illustrate a misunderstanding of the applicable law as well as a lack of adequate acquaintance with this record. 150 The Supreme Court has never held that it is a requirement of a valid conviction for conspiracy, that every conspirator must have agreed, intended to conduct or participated in every crime committed by other co-conspirators in the event the crime was within the scope of the conspiracy which he was proved to have joined. Squarely in point concerning the criminal enterprise in this case is the statement in United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 902-03 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Delph v. United States, 439 U.S. 953, 99 S.Ct. 349, 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978) (footnote omitted): 151 (T)he object of a RICO conspiracy is to violate a substantive RICO provision here, to conduct or participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity and not merely to commit each of the predicate crimes necessary to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity. The gravamen of the conspiracy charge in this case is not that each defendant agreed to commit arson, to steal goods from interstate commerce, to obstruct justice, and to sell narcotics; rather, it is that each agreed to participate, directly and indirectly, in the affairs of the enterprise by committing two or more predicate crimes. Under the statute, it is irrelevant that each defendant participated in the enterprise's affairs through different, even unrelated crimes, so long as we may reasonably infer that each crime was intended to further the enterprise's affairs. To find a single conspiracy, we still must look for agreement on an overall objective. What Congress did was to define that objective through the substantive provisions of the Act. 152 The proofs in this case were such as to allow the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that each of these defendants violated the critical section of Title IX which declares: 153 It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 154 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (1976). This 6,250 page record demonstrates that the jury could have found on competent evidence that all of the nine defendants were engaged in, employed by, or associated with the criminal enterprise described in this indictment, and that they conducted or participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. 155 There is no question that central to this enterprise's operation was a conspiracy to sell heroin. Every one of the nine persons concerned was engaged in important activities in the conduct of this illegal business. We emphasize that we do not deal here with allegations of the possession of narcotics for use by any defendant. These nine were not addicts. They were engaged in a wholesale heroin operation throughout southern Ohio and northern Kentucky. Each of the nine defendants was not only convicted on the charge of conducting the illegal Title IX enterprise and conspiracy to do so, but were individually convicted on three or more substantive felony counts of drug sale related offenses. 156 As is true in any enterprise, some of the conspirators were at the very center of the enterprise. They were Herschel Weintrub, Carl Sutton, and Edwin A. Adams. Weintrub and Adams operated the heroin conspiracy from their respective jewelry stores (previously described above) in close and continual partnership with Carl Sutton. Adams and Weintrub also used their jewelry stores for fencing stolen jewelry, stolen firearms, stolen household goods, and the commission of mail fraud. The evidence shows and the jury could have found that they used the proceeds of these ancillary crimes to finance further purchases of heroin. This was in fact an integrated enterprise. 157 As noted earlier, Weintrub, originally a defendant in this case, pleaded guilty before trial and has been sentenced. The record shows conclusively that he was the financier for the enterprise and probably its brains. Carl Sutton was the most important contact with Carter and Elkins, who from Cleveland supplied the drugs for this ring. But the evidence in this record is such as to allow the jury to find that he also participated in the fencing activities of Adams and Weintrub. 158 The dissent mistakes the fundamental thrust of the law of conspiracy and criminal enterprise. It even more badly mistakes what this record discloses about this conspiracy and this criminal enterprise. 159 Scholarly debate has not ceased concerning whether or not Congress should make conspiracy to commit unlawful acts a crime separate from the substantive offense. The law pertaining to this issue has, however, been settled at least since 1945, when the Supreme Court decided Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). In that case, with only one partial dissent, the late Justice William O. Douglas spelled out in detail the law pertaining to the proofs necessary to establish a criminal conspiracy and the relationship between conspiracy and substantive crimes. What follows is, we believe, equally applicable to the illegal enterprise charged and proved in this case: 160 It has been long and consistently recognized by the Court that the commission of the substantive offense and a conspiracy to commit it are separate and distinct offenses. The power of Congress to separate the two and to affix to each a different penalty is well established. Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590, 594-595 (16 S.Ct. 125, 126, 40 L.Ed. 269). A conviction for the conspiracy may be had though the substantive offense was completed. See Heike v. United States, 227 U.S. 131, 144 (33 S.Ct. 226, 228, 57 L.Ed. 450). And the plea of double jeopardy is no defense to a conviction for both offenses. Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365, 395 (22 S.Ct. 181, 193, 46 L.Ed. 236). It is only an identity of offenses which is fatal. See Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 (31 S.Ct. 421, 422, 55 L.Ed. 489). Cf. Freeman v. United States, 146 F.2d 978 (6th Cir.). A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 253 (60 S.Ct. 811, 858, 84 L.Ed. 1129). It has ingredients, as well as implications, distinct from the completion of the unlawful project. As stated in United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 88 (, 35 S.Ct. 682, 684, 59 L.Ed. 1211): 161 For two or more to confederate and combine together to commit or cause to be committed a breach of the criminal laws, is an offense of the gravest character, sometimes quite outweighing, in injury to the public, the mere commission of the contemplated crime. It involves deliberate plotting to subvert the laws, educating and preparing the conspirators for further and habitual criminal practices. And it is characterized by secrecy, rendering it difficult of detection, requiring more time for its discovery, and adding to the importance of punishing it when discovered. 162 And see Sneed v. United States, 298 F. 911, 912-913 (5th Cir.); Banghart v. United States, 148 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.). 163 Moreover, it is not material that overt acts charged in the conspiracy counts were also charged and proved as substantive offenses. As stated in Sneed v. United States, supra, 298 F. p. 913, If the overt act be the offense which was the object of the conspiracy, and is also punished, there is not a double punishment of it. The agreement to do an unlawful act is even then distinct from the doing of the act. 4 164 It is contended that there was insufficient evidence to implicate Daniel in the conspiracy. But we think there was enough evidence for submission of the issue to the jury. 165 There is, however, no evidence to show that Daniel participated directly in the commission of the substantive offenses on which his conviction has been sustained, 5 although there was evidence to show that these substantive offenses were in fact committed by Walter in furtherance of the unlawful agreement or conspiracy existing between the brothers. The question was submitted to the jury on the theory that each petitioner could be found guilty of the substantive offenses, if it was found at the time those offenses were committed petitioners were parties to an unlawful conspiracy and the substantive offenses charged were in fact committed in furtherance of it. 6 166 Daniel relies on United States v. Sall, supra (116 F.2d 745 (3rd Cir. 1940)). That case held that participation in the conspiracy was not itself enough to sustain a conviction for the substantive offense even though it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court held that, in addition to evidence that the offense was in fact committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, evidence of direct participation in the commission of the substantive offense or other evidence from which participation might fairly be inferred was necessary. 167 We take a different view. We have here a continuous conspiracy. There is here no evidence of the affirmative action on the part of Daniel which is necessary to establish his withdrawal from it. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369 (32 S.Ct. 793, 803, 56 L.Ed. 1114). As stated in that case, Having joined in an unlawful scheme, having constituted agents for its performance, scheme and agency to be continuous until full fruition be secured, until he does some act to disavow or defeat the purpose he is in no situation to claim the delay of the law. As the offense has not been terminated or accomplished he is still offending. And we think, consciously offending, offending as certainly, as we have said, as at the first moment of his confederation, and consciously through every moment of its existence. Id., p. 369 (32 S.Ct. at 803). And so long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward. It is settled that an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 608 (31 S.Ct. 124, 126, 54 L.Ed. 1168). Motive or intent may be proved by the acts or declarations of some of the conspirators in furtherance of the common objective. Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 657-658 (16 S.Ct. 1127, 1137, 41 L.Ed. 289). 168 Pinkerton v. United States, supra at 643-47, 66 S.Ct. at 1182-1184. 169 Much more recently, the Supreme Court has cited the Pinkerton case with approval in United States v. Iannelli, supra. There Justice Powell said for the Court: 170 Traditionally the law has considered conspiracy and the completed substantive offense to be separate crimes. Conspiracy is an inchoate offense, the essence of which is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. See, e. g., United States v. Feola, ante, p. 671; Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 644 (66 S.Ct. 1180, 1182, 90 L.Ed. 1489) (1946); Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53, (63 S.Ct. 99, 101, 87 L.Ed. 23) (1942). Unlike some crimes that arise in a single transaction, see Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415 (79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407) (1959); Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 (77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370) (1957), the conspiracy to commit an offense and the subsequent commission of that crime normally do not merge into a single punishable act. Pinkerton v. United States, supra, at 643, (66 S.Ct. at 1181). Thus, it is well recognized that in most cases separate sentences can be imposed for the conspiracy to do an act and for the subsequent accomplishment of that end. Feola, supra; Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312) (1961); Pinkerton, supra; Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 365 (22 S.Ct. 181, 46 L.Ed. 236) (1902). Indeed, the Court has even held that the conspiracy can be punished more harshly than the accomplishment of its purpose. Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590 (16 S.Ct. 125, 40 L.Ed. 269) (1895). 171 The consistent rationale of this long line of decisions rests on the very nature of the crime of conspiracy. This Court repeatedly has recognized that a conspiracy poses distinct dangers quite apart from those of the substantive offense. 172 This settled principle derives from the reason of things in dealing with socially reprehensible conduct: collective criminal agreement partnership in crime presents a greater potential threat to the public than individual delicts. Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. Group association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked. Combination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed. In sum, the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise. Callanan v. United States, supra, at 593-594, 81 S.Ct. at 325. 173 Iannelli v. United States, supra at 777-78, 95 S.Ct. at 1289 (footnotes omitted). 174 As we read it, the most important legal argument advanced by the dissent is stated in these words: 175 In Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, (66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557) (1946), the Supreme Court had made the same basic point. It reversed convictions because the evidence showed multiple conspiracies rather than the one alleged in the indictment. 176 In the Kotteakos case, Justice Rutledge phrased the question as follows: 177 The only question is whether petitioners have suffered substantial prejudice from being convicted of a single general conspiracy by evidence which the Government admits proved not one conspiracy but some eight or more different ones of the same sort executed through a common key figure, Simon Brown. 178 Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 752, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). The opinion then described the nature of the evidence in the case: 179 Simon Brown, who pleaded guilty, was the common and key figure in all of the transactions proven. He was president of the Brownie Lumber Company. Having had experience in obtaining loans under the National Housing Act, he undertook to act as broker in placing for other loans for modernization and renovation, charging a five per cent commission for his services. Brown knew, when he obtained the loans, that the proceeds were not to be used for the purposes stated in the applications. 180 Id. at 753, 66 S.Ct. at 1242. The opinion then recited evidence of a lawyer who fraudulently procured a loan to finance opening his law office by stating the purpose of the loan was that of modernizing his father's house. No facts relating the lawyer to any of the other conspirators except Brown were recited. The facts in Kotteakos were further stated as follows: 181 The evidence against the other defendants whose cases were submitted to the jury was similar in character. They too had transacted business with Brown relating to National Housing Act loans. But no connection was shown between them and petitioners, other than that Brown had been the instrument in each instance for obtaining the loans. In many cases the other defendants did not have any relationship with one another, other than Brown's connection with each transaction. As the Circuit Court of Appeals said, there were at least eight, and perhaps more, separate and independent groups, none of which had any connection with any other, though all dealt independently with Brown as their agent. 151 F.2d at 172. As the Government puts it, the pattern was that of separate spokes meeting in a common center, though, we may add, without the rim of the wheel to enclose the spokes. 182 Id. at 754-55, 66 S.Ct. at 1242 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). 183 We both accept and agree with the principles of the Kotteakos case. For one man to agree to and execute housing fraud upon the United States government as the agent of eight separate and unrelated individuals in eight separate transactions does not constitute a single conspiracy involving all nor would it, without more facts, constitute participation in a Title IX enterprise. As the Supreme Court said: 184 We do not think that either Congress, when it enacted § 269, or this Court, when deciding the Berger case, intended to authorize the Government to string together, for common trial, eight or more separate and distinct crimes, conspiracies related in kind though they might be, when the only nexus among them lies in the fact that one man participated in all. 185 Id. at 773, 66 S.Ct. at 1252. 186 The differences between Kotteakos and our present case are very great. 187 First, as we have pointed out above, the primary conspiracy was one to engage in the sale of narcotics, principally heroin. All nine of the defendants were proven to have engaged in felonies related to the possession of heroin for distribution, or the sale of heroin, or the use of the telephone to facilitate sale of heroin, or to sell it. In fact, all nine of these appellants were convicted on competent evidence on three or more substantive offenses of the variety just described. 188 Second, we call attention again to the testimony of Agent Owens and Sergeant Arkenau set forth on pages 17-23 of this opinion. Among other things, as will be recalled, Arkenau stated: 189 Edwin related to me the entire setup of how the operation was started out and how it was founded. Edwin related that the main individual who started the organization was an individual they called J. P., the initials of J. P., and he was the head of the organization several years ago. 190 He also then started to tell me that the organization was split up among three of J.P.'s trusted friends, and one of these three individuals Edwin Adams and Herschel Weintrub had met, and this individual they mention by the first name of Carl, and Carl did not have the money to back the operation, so they went to Herschel and Edwin to finance the operation, and Carl would furnish the drugs. 191 During this time, Edwin said they buy their heroin a kilo at a time for approximately $20,000 a kilo, and it would be in the vicinity of 20 percent pure by the time they got it. 192 After describing how he paid Edwin Adams $850, 750 for the heroin and another hundred for the gun, Arkenau subsequently continued: 193 After I purchased the gun, we continued to talk. Edwin was telling me about how easy it was to be a fence or a dealer of stolen merchandise. Since he was in the jewelry-type business, he could purchase items and melt them down and remake them since he had a certain type of manufacturer's license. 194 I told him I didn't know a whole lot about the jewelry business, whether it was a good diamond or bad diamond, and so forth, and he explained that it was real easy to be a jewelry fence in the legitimate business of a jewelry store. 195 On May 11 Agent Owens (in his undercover role) was told by Adams that his heroin suppliers were Carl and Herschel. Carl Sutton and Herschel Weintrub and appellant Otis Hensley were repeatedly identified and photographed at Edwin's Jewelry. 196 Hensley, whose stolen goods were frequently sold by Adams through use of Edwin's Jewelry, told Agent Arkenau that he had 12 burglary rings working for him. 197 Third. The continual association of Weintrub, Adams and Sutton as the executive group of this enterprise is portrayed in dozens of pages of this lengthy transcript, but perhaps most vividly in the pictures of meetings between these three on the night of May 6, 1976, and (with Hensley) on May 17: EXHIBIT 1 198 H. Weintrub & Carl Sutton in front of Edwin's Jewelry 199 Store. Taken May 6, 1976, 8:50 p.m. by C.Barry Pickett. 200 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLEEXHIBIT 2 201 Adams, Sutton and H. Weintrub leaving Edwin's Jewelry 202 Store. Taken May 6, 1976, 10:15 p.m. - Pickett testimony. 203 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLEEven more explicit of the relationship between Weintrub, Adams and Sutton are pictures taken of the three of them both arriving and leaving on the night of May 17, 1976. 204 It will be noted from the pictures below that Weintrub entered Adams' store with two small gold-colored boxes and subsequently Sutton departed carrying those same boxes: EXHIBIT 8 205 Carl Sutton entering Edwin's Jewelry Store (empty 206 handed). Taken May 17, 6:18 p.m. - Pickett testimony. 207 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLEEXHIBIT 5 208 H. Weintrub walking to Edwin's Jewelry Store. Taken 209 May 17, 6:37 p.m. - Pickett testimony. 210 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLEEXHIBIT 6 211 H. Weintrub entering Edwin's Jewelry with gold-colored 212 boxes under his arm - being let in by Otis Hensley. 213 Taken May 17, 1976, approx. 6:37 p.m. - Pickett testimony. 214 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 215 Concerning this sequence of pictures, Agent Pickett testified: 216 Q. After Mr. Hensley checked the door, what, if anything, did you observe subsequent to that time? 217 A. After that, I observed Herschel Weintrub arrive at Edwin's Jewelry Store, and he was carrying two gold-colored small boxes under his arm.EXHIBIT 7 218 Carl Sutton departing Edwin's Jewelry Store carrying 219 the two gold-colored boxes Weintrub carried on entering the store. 220 Taken May 17, 1976, 7:28 p.m. 221 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 222 Agent Pickett testified concerning this exhibit: 223 Q. Can you identify Government's Exhibit 7, please? 224 A. Yes, sir. That is a picture of Mr. Sutton as he is leaving Edwin's Jewelry Store with the two gold-colored boxes in his left hand. 225 Fourth. The principal conspirators treated all of their illegal activities as part of one illegal enterprise. 226 Adams offered to and did sell both heroin and stolen goods to both Agent Owens and Sergeant Arkenau while both were acting undercover. The judge and the jury had a right to infer from their evidence that this was a regular pattern which commingled both the stolen goods and heroin proceeds and employed both in financing the principal business of heroin purchase and sale. 227 This pattern was repeatedly confirmed in the conversations between the principal conspirators and their sales agents such as Hensley and Harris. 228 During the government's case a transcript of a phone call between Herschel Weintrub and Sam Harris was introduced. Harris told Weintrub of the arrest of someone referred to as Tennessee and indicated that he (Harris) was lying low. The conversation continued, as set out below, to discuss his debt to Weintrub for $440 for rings, winding up with an interesting prophecy: 229 SH I ain't even going to worry about it, I was, I went and seen my lawyer ... 230 HW Yeah. 231 SH you know, ah ... 232 HW Uh-huh. 233 SH went to see him the day before the elections ... 234 HW Um-hum. 235 SH and he told me, if, you know, if it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen, not even to worry about it ... 236 HW Yeah. 237 SH and not to say nothing to anybody, don't talk over no phones to anybody, you know, and, ah ... 238 HW Um-hum. 239 SH and not to discuss anything ... 240 HW Yeah, well listen ... 241 SH if they come and get me, just, go ahead, and, ah, and, ah, call him, and not to say nothing, sign nothing, or do nothing ... 242 HW Do nothing. 243 SH just tell em your name, if they want fingerprints, you'll let em ... 244 HW Name, face and serial number. 245 SH Yeah, that's what he said ... 246 HW Yeah. 247 SH the only thing you sign is the fingerprint card 248 HW Yeah. 249 SH and he said that's it ... 250 HW Yeah. 251 SH and he said call me right now. 252 HW Yeah, OK. 253 SH So, I don't know, I never, ah, heard nothing or anything ... 254 HW Yeah. 255 SH you know, I'm just staying home. 256 HW Well, that's good, stay home, collect unemployment or something. 257 SH That's what I'm gonna do, I'm, just, I don't know if I can collect any fuckin unemployment, but I'm staying home. 258 HW Yeah. 259 SH That other stuff, though, you know, ah, on that ring, that money, what'd I owe you, four forty yet? 260 HW Yeah. 261 SH I'll, I'll have that together for ya, because, ah, I took them rings, and, ah, I'm gonna give em to, you know, another guy. 262 HW Um-hum. 263 SH And see if he can peddle em to somebody so I don't have to get ... 264 HW Yeah, get rid of em all at once. 265 SH Right. 266 HW OK. 267 SH Let it go at that ... 268 HW All right. 269 SH get out of debt, and see what happens. 270 HW Yeah, well, let me know what goes, I was just calling to kibitz (phonetic). 271 SH Nah, I think, ah, see, ah, you were real, real fortunate, you know, not having any dealings with this bastard ... 272 HW Yeah. 273 SH In any way, shape or form, I don't know if I have or not. 274 HW I don't think you have. I hope not. 275 SH I do, too, but ... 276 HW Yeah. 277 SH you know, I'm gonna, if I do, I'm going to fight mine right to the end of it. 278 HW Oh, hell yeah. 279 SH Fuck with it, I'll stay around 3 or 4 years on appeal. 280 (Emphasis added.) 281 Subsequently, Harris testified on his own behalf at the trial of this case and was asked about the conversation just quoted: 282 Q. You also stated that you still owed on a ring $440, and that you would have it together. What did you mean by that sentence? 283 A. It could have meant heroin or it could have meant jewelry because I did sell some jewelry for him, and I just don't know which it meant because we had a way of everything getting jammed into one thing. Like if he would give me some watches or jewelry or something to hustle, sell, he might just add it in with what was the balance on the dope transaction. I don't really recall which way it was. (Emphasis added.) 284 The District Judge doubtless considered the quoted government evidence on the motion to dismiss the indictment. The jury had both portions of evidence quoted from the transcript before it on the issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 285 Illustrative also of how much integration there was in the various subsidiary aspects of this enterprise is Government Exhibit # 350, a red bound ledger book seized under search warrant in appellant Hensley's house. The ledger obviously is a price list on stolen items garnered by Hensley's 12 burglary teams. On the first few pages of the ledger there are 12 names and telephone numbers. Although one is identified only by a nickname and several are identified by first names only, or last names only, or in one instance by initials, there is a strong inference that Hensley thought each of these was a person whom he was likely to call in relation to disposition of the stolen goods. Three of the defendants in this case can easily be identified: Carl, Hershell (sic), and T. Hill, another co-conspirator in this case as to whom trial was severed and who now has been found guilty and sentenced. In sum total the individual items number 385 and cover 33 pages of the ledger. They include many pieces of jewelry, many stolen firearms, a significant number of pieces of clothing, some building materials, a complete coin collection, television sets, microwave ovens and miscellaneous household furnishing. Beside various of these items are names, some with notations like Otis kept, apparently applicable to one Quasar 19 inch with the notation brought back, no good. The total number of individual names, many of them appearing numerous times, is 24. 286 The point we make by reference to this exhibit is that 1) the fencing aspect of the enterprise although clearly subsidiary to the heroin distribution scheme was substantial; 2) was operated in connection with all three of the executive group of the enterprise (Weintrub, Adams and Sutton), and 3) involved a substantial number of operatives other than Hensley. 287 Viola Holmes not only operated as a drug courier for Sutton in Cincinnati and the Cleveland drug source maintained by appellants Elkins and Carter, she also, in effect, ran a subheadquarters for the Weintrub-Adams-Sutton executive group at her home. Prince Albert Rankin frequently talked with Carl Sutton on Viola Holmes' phone and Herschel Weintrub used it to talk with Charles Craven, usually on calls relating to the purchase and sale of heroin. 288 Federal agents also observed Rankin and Sutton on a visit to the Holmes house on November 14, 1976: 289 Q. Mr. Stuart, calling your attention to November 14, 1976, did you have occasion to conduct a physical surveillance that day? 290
291 Q. Where was your surveillance located? 292 A. In the vicinity of 6753 Bellkenton Avenue, Silverton. 293 Q. And around 5:00 o'clock in the evening, what if anything did you see? 294 A. Sir, at approximately 5:07 P.M., I observed a black Cadillac Eldorado pull up in front of the residence at Bellkenton, honk the horn a couple times, and then the vehicle continued on a short way and pulled into the driveway of Viola Holmes' residence. I then observed a male Negro who I later was able to identify as Prince Albert Rankin get out of the Cadillac and walk up to the porch of the residence. He was there and then almost immediately turned around and walked back toward his car. 295 Then I heard him say, Do you want me to pull in the back, Carl? 296 I didn't hear any response. 297 Rankin got into the Cadillac and pulled the car back behind the residence in the driveway. 298 The male Negro I know now as Prince Albert Rankin and a female who I don't know got out and went in the rear of the residence. 299 Q. Were you able to see what occurred inside the residence? 300 A. No, sir, I was not. 301 Q. Did you observe the Cadillac leave at any time that day? 302 A. Yes, sir. Later in the evening the vehicle left and I didn't see it. I moved my surveillance position at about 5:55 P.M. It took me about three or four minutes to get from the one location to the second location, and when I got to the second location, the Cadillac which had been parked in the driveway, Rankin's Cadillac, was gone. I did not actually see him pull out. 303 Q. Did you ever see it come back that evening? 304 A. Yes, sir. At approximately 6:35 P.M., I observed this same Cadillac pull back into the driveway of the residence. He parked partway back in the driveway. Sutton got out of the passenger side of the car and went into the back of the residence. The black Cadillac then with Rankin and a female in it backed out of the driveway and then drove down Bellkenton out of my sight. 305 Sutton and Rankin's conversations were not, however, limited strictly to heroin dealing, as indicated by the search warrant intercepted conversation on Viola Holmes' phone between Prince Albert Rankin and Carl Sutton: PAR Prince Albert Rankin; CS Carl Sutton 306 CS Yea. 307 PAR This is Chuck. 308 CS Yea, what's happenin? 309 PAR Nothin, man. 310 CS Ain't nothin wrong? 311 PAR No, ain't nothin wrong. 312 CS Okay. 313 PAR Uh, you ... 314 CS I know what you're talking about. Tomorrow, I was just told today, tomorrow. Okay? 315 PAR That ain't the syrup, is it? 316 CS Well, no, other thing you was talking about, yea. 317 PAR Right, yea. 318 CS That's how come I didn't mention anything to ya the other day, ya know. 319 PAR Okay. 320 CS Okay. Soon as they hit me, I'll hit you. 321 PAR Alright, I can use that, you know, man. 322 CS It will keep your thing together, ya know. 323 PAR Yea, cause you know, I can't ... 324 CS I know what ya mean. I know what ya mean. 325 PAR I done drank up all of the syrup trying to get rid of this cold, Carl. 326 CS You're jivin. 327 PAR I ain't jivin. 328 CS Damn, I called ya the other day. You must a been asleep. 329 PAR Hey, ya know, uh (inaudible) woke up, but I wanted to see about some stereo equipment. 330 CS A huh. 331 PAR You know, and that stuff had me hung up pretty long. Got it in and it wasn't right then. And now I gotta take it back. 332 CS I see. You shoulda called me. I would have come over and did it for ya. 333 PAR Ah, ya know how bad I am with this stuff. 334 CS You still got it over there? 335 PAR Yea. But what it is, it's uh, one of my phono channels, or fuse blowed or somethin. I don't know. Somethin. I just take the whole thing back to the, uh, I'm going to take the amp, ya know. 336 CS Oh, okay. What kinda amp is it, Chuck? 337 PAR Sony. 338 CS Yea, that's a good one. 339 PAR 4 channels, you know, and quad. 340 CS Yeah. 341 PAR So I'm just going to take it back and let them handle it. 342 CS OK. 343 PAR (Inaudible) so I'll just wait. 344 CS Hey, no problem, ya know. 345 PAR You know, as much as I can get. 346 CS OK, cool. 347 PAR Alright. 348 CS Okay. 349 PAR I'll talk to ya. Thank ya. 350 CS Okay, buddy. Bye. 351 (Emphasis added.) 352 Pages 2862-64 of the transcript record conversation between Herschel Weintrub and Carl Sutton in which they discuss three separate Sutton ring transactions, two being with Ed Adams. 353 On November 15, 1976, appellants Weintrub and Sutton, after a conversation which obviously concerned heroin, had the following exchange: 354 HW Okay, then I know how far I can go, see. 355 CS Okay. 356 HW Okay. I'll see ya later. 357 CS Okay. 358 HW Oh, listen, I got the watches and stuff. I got your toothpick and I got the crystal. So I'll see ya within uh, about 9 o'clock. 359 CS Oh, yes. 360 HW Is that alright? 361 CS Yea. Won't be not later than that, will ya? 362 HW No, no, I'm in town now and just tryin to get outa here. 363 CS Okay. 364 (Emphasis added.) 365 Following is the testimony of Viola Holmes pertaining to Carl Sutton's sales of rings, watches and furniture. Other portions of this indicate that she was seeking to be exculpatory both as to herself and Sutton in this testimony, but it represents evidence which the jury could have considered with other evidence to conclude that Sutton, with Holmes' full knowledge, was engaged in fact in selling stolen property for the fencing scheme involved in this indictment: 366 Q. Okay. Now, do you know whether or not Carl Sutton ever sold rings or watches? 367 A. Yes. 368 Q. Did you all discuss this? 369 A. Not a great deal, but I know that he sold rings and watches, jewelry for Herschel Weintrub. 370 Q. All right. Now, in connection with his selling of jewelry or selling of furniture, did you on any occasion collect any money for him? 371 A. Yes. 372 Q. How did that happen? 373 A. Well, maybe Carl would call somebody or somebody would call him, and he had to go somewhere else, maybe he would have to go sell somebody else furniture, and he wasn't going to be there and they would want to bring like some of their money or whatever, and that is how it would happen. 374 This record also described surveillance of Viola Holmes' residence at 6753 Bellkenton Avenue and an observation of Carl Sutton and Viola Holmes leaving the residence in Sutton's automobile, and Weintrub arriving and going into the house with a key. He came out, locked the door, and carried away a small package. The date involved was October 29, 1976, in the afternoon and evening. 375 There is also a record of a surveillance on the first of November 1976 where Carl Sutton appeared at the residence briefly and Viola Holmes appeared and went into the house. Sutton and two other persons placed three boxes in the trunk of Sutton's Ford automobile. 376 About 8:10 p. m. a 1976 Cadillac arrived containing Armentrus Glenn and Charles Craven who entered the residence. Craven was identified by the agent as being in the courtroom. They went into the house at 8:30; Weintrub came and was admitted by Carl Sutton. They remained at the Holmes' residence until at least 9:10 p. m. 377 On the occasion of the arrest of Rankin and a court-ordered search of Rankin's house, the agents found both heroin and drug supplies and appliances which were introduced at this trial. They also seized at the house and introduced into evidence a sales agreement for a 1976 Cadillac, showing cash paid by Rankin in the sum of $13,750. 378 The name Prince Albert Rankin answered to and was known by in this enterprise was Chuck or Chuckie. This name was found in Hensley's ledger of stolen goods (Exhibit 350) four times once beside a roofing ladder, twice beside lists of shotguns, and once beside a list of three diamond rings. 379 The following portion of the record is Agent Roberts' testimony concerning the search of Charles Craven's apartment under a federally issued search warrant. Seized was government's Exhibit 120, described as several packages of a white powdery substance found in a brief case underneath Craven's bed. Seized also were a number of plastic envelopes constituting Exhibit 121, which also contained a white powdery substance which was subsequently analyzed. Seized also was a book called a diary, Exhibit 126, containing names and dollar amounts of money next to them and an appointment book, Exhibit 127, and a ledger, Exhibit 128, two special bound pads, Exhibits 129 and 130. Exhibit 139(a) is an exhibit described on page 3566 as a single piece of paper containing a number of names with dollar amounts listed underneath $2,400, taken from Craven's brief case. Exhibit 55 is a plastic-sealed envelope containing a white powdery substance, taken from the kitchen of Mr. Craven's apartment and Exhibit 56 is bottles containing quinine sulfate capsules. There was expert testimony to the effect that these capsules were often used to cut heroin. 380 This evidence was introduced by the government to help substantiate the nature of the telephone conversations which were the subject of Craven's six felony convictions on substantive counts: 381 Q. Agent Roberts, referring your attention to December 8, 1976, did you search the apartment of Charles Craven at 3619 Clarion Avenue, Apartment 10, pursuant to a federal search warrant? 382 A. I did. 383 Q. Did you seize any items? 384 A. Yes. 385 Q. Agent Roberts, can you describe the contents of Government Exhibit 120? 386 A. Yes. It contains inside this plastic envelope a package, or several packages of a white powdery substance. The packages are initialed by me and dated. 387 Q. And were those contents seized on December 8, 1976, from the apartment of Mr. Craven? 388 A. That's correct, they were seized inside a briefcase underneath his bed. 389 Q. And do you recall where the briefcase was located? 390 A. In the bedroom underneath his bed was the briefcase. 391 Q. And what did you do with the contents of Government Exhibit 120? 392 A. Well, they stayed in my custody until returning to our office at which time they were sealed, again initialed, and turned over to the Drug people. 393 Q. When you say they were initialed, was it with your initials? 394 A. That's correct. 395 Q. Could we please see Government Exhibit 121? 396 (Government Exhibit 121 handed to the witness.) 397 Referring your attention to Government Exhibit 121, can you describe the contents of this exhibit? 398 A. Yes. It contains a number of plastic or glassine type envelopes, I guess you would call them, and two packages which are sealed containing another white powdery substance which is also initialed and dated by me. 399 Q. Were these items seized on December 8, 1976, from the apartment of Mr. Craven? 400 A. That's right, they were also taken from his briefcase, I believe. 401 Q. Now, what if anything did you do with the contents of that exhibit after you seized it? 402 A. These also remained in my custody until I returned to the office at which time they were again sealed and turned over to the Drug people for analysis. 403 Q. Could we please see Government Exhibit 122? 404 (Government Exhibit 122 handed to the witness.) 405 Mrs. Anderson, if you have a pencil, I can give you the rest of the exhibits that we will need for this witness, and it might save a little time. We will need Exhibits 123 through 132, 55, 56, 58 and 59, 139 and 139-A. 406 Mr. Roberts, can you describe Government Exhibit 122?A. Yes. It is a plastic sealing device which was seized from Mr. Craven's kitchen on the day of the search in December. My initials are scratched on the device as well as the bag containing it. 407 Q. May we have Exhibit 123, please? 408 (Government Exhibit 123 handed to the witness.) 409 Agent Roberts, can you identify Government Exhibit 123? 410 A. Yes, it is a cardboard box containing little envelopes that are initialed and dated by me. 411 Q. And where was that found? 412 A. These were also found in Mr. Craven's residence, I believe in the bedroom. 413 Q. Would you take a look at Government Exhibit 124? 414 (Government Exhibit 124 handed to the witness.) 415 I will ask you if you can describe the contents of Government Exhibit 124? 416 A. Yes, these are piece of evidence seized from the briefcase which we found under Mr. Craven's bed. It contains a box labeled glassine envelopes, another box containing small boilable cooking pouches, some loose glassine envelopes, a box of prophylactics, and a smaller package containing little paper envelopes. 417 Q. Were all the contents of Government Exhibit 124 seized from Mr. Craven's apartment on December 8, 1976? 418 A. That's correct, they were. There is also a deck of cards, playing cards. 419 Q. Will you take a look at Government Exhibit 125? 420 (Government Exhibit 125 handed to the witness.) 421 I will ask you if you can identify that? 422 A. It is a book which was taken from Mr. Craven's apartment, initialed and dated by me on the first page here, containing figures. 423 Q. And was that book seized on December 8, 1976? 424 A. That's right, it was. 425 Q. Would you take a look at Government Exhibits 126 through 130? 426 (Government Exhibits 126 through 130 handed to the witness.) 427 A. Exhibit 126 is a book that says Diary on the cover, and it is initialed and dated by me. It contains names and dollar amounts of money next to the names. 428 Q. From where was that seized? 429 A. This was taken from the bedroom. 430 Q. Of whose apartment? 431 A. From Mr. Craven's apartment. 432 Q. And on the same date we have been discussing? 433 A. That's correct. 434 Exhibit 127 is an appointment book that is initialed and dated by me, and it appears to have names with figures next to them. This was also taken from the bedroom of Mr. Craven's apartment on December 8. 435 Q. What is Government Exhibit 128? 436 A. Exhibit 128 is a book entitled, Ledger it looks like, and it has been initialed and dated by me, and it was taken from Mr. Craven's apartment on December 8. It also contains numbers. There is a calendar here on several pages, and there are names similar to the first three. 437 Q. Would you look at Government Exhibits 129 and 130? 438 A. Okay. May I take them from the envelope, sir? 439 Q. Yes. 440 A. These are sealed up. 441 This is a small spiral-bound pad dated and initialed by me on December 8. It is open to a page containing numbers and names, and it was taken also from the apartment of Mr. Craven. 442 Q. Again pursuant to the same search warrant on December 8, 1976? 443 A. That's correct. 444 Q. What is Government Exhibit 130? 445 A. Exhibit 130 is also a spiral-bound pad. It is initialed and dated by me, and it also contains names and numbers and apparently phone numbers, and it was taken from the apartment of Mr. Craven on December 8. 446 Would the clerk please hand the witness Government Exhibits 139 and 139-A? 447 (Government Exhibits 139 and 139-A handed to the witness.) 448 A. Exhibit 139 is the briefcase which I seized from under Mr. Craven's bed. It is initialed by me. This was the briefcase containing the white powdery substance that I previously identified and several of the other articles here. 449 Q. And was that seized on December 8, 1976? 450 A. This was seized from his residence on that date, that's correct, from underneath his bed. 451 Q. Would you take a look at Government Exhibit 139-A? I will ask you if you can identify that? 452 A. This is just a single piece of paper for a small notebook initialed and dated by me on the rear, on the back side of it. On the front side it contains a number of names with dollar amounts listed underneath them and a total on the bottom of apparently $2400. That was also taken from the briefcase. 453 Q. Would the clerk please hand the witness Government Exhibits 55, 56, 58 and 59? 454 (Government Exhibits 55, 56, 58 and 59 handed to the witness.) 455 Agent Roberts, can you describe Government Exhibit 55? 456 A. Yes, it is a plastic-sealed envelope. It looks like it contains a white powdery substance. It is initialed and dated by me, and it was taken from the kitchen of Mr. Craven's apartment. 457 Q. After you seized those particular items, what if anything did you do with them? 458 A. Did you want this one also identified? 459 Q. That's all right. Continue with Exhibit 55. 460 A. These items were again maintained in my custody and control until they were returned to our office, and at that time they were turned over to the Drug people for analysis. 461 Q. I take it when you say these exhibits, that you are referring to Government Exhibit 56. 462 A. That's correct. Exhibit 56 is two bottles. They have a label on the front stating that they are quinine sulfate capsules. The backs of the bottles are initialed by me and dated with a notation that these were obtained from the briefcase of Mr. Craven, and again these remained in my custody until returning to the office. 463 Q. Agent Roberts, I would like you to identify Government Exhibits 58 and 59, please. 464 (Government Exhibits 58 and 59 handed to the witness.) 465 A. These are both bottles with a label appearing on the front indicating that they are lactose, one-pound jars of lactose, and they are initialed and dated by me, and these were taken from the kitchen of Mr. Craven on the day of the search, December 8. 466 Q. And were they kept in your custody and control? 467 A. That's correct, they were kept in my custody until returning to the office. 468 The record in this case discloses that Charles Craven was observed on six separate occasions at the residence of Viola Holmes, once in the company of Carl Sutton. 469 Following is testimony by Agent Owens concerning a $3,000 debt for heroin which James Pieratt owed Appellant Adams: 470 A. During this conversation, Mr. Adams indicated to me that he was quite concerned because a fellow from Middletown named James Pieratt owed him approximately $3,000 for heroin which he had fronted to him, and he stated that Pieratt had encountered some problem with the law and wasn't going to be in a position to pay him. 471 However, he indicated to me that he wasn't overly concerned because he was holding certain stolen property that belonged to Pieratt which he was going to be able to dispose of and offset part of the $3,000 that was owed to him. 472 As I recall, the items which he said he was holding that Mr. Pieratt had given him was a brown diamond of some sort that had been taken in a burglary, a Sony television set which he indicated was in a room on the second floor of his house, and a quantity of monogrammed silver, silver service, which he was going to melt down and sell to the refinery. 473 Weintrub also set up a successful burglary of a house of one of his neighbors for Ed Lawell in order for Lawell to be able to pay a $12,000 heroin debt to him (Weintrub). 474 Appellant Hensley, with the close cooperation of Herschel Weintrub and Edwin Adams, perpetrated a fraud upon Nationwide Insurance Company of Columbus, Ohio, by dint of procuring from Weintrub and Adams fictitious receipts for the purchases of items from their jewelry stores. Hensley submitted these receipts to support his claim of ownership of and to establish the value for certain property which he claimed to have been stolen from his house in a burglary. The nature of this fraud and who got the money is undisputed in this record. It is of particular significance at this point because the scheme was designed by Herschel Weintrub in order to provide Hensley a method of paying Weintrub $575 which Hensley owed Weintrub for heroin. Weintrub filed a claim with Nationwide for this amount and received $575 of the total fraudulent payment personally by check to repay him for heroin purchases. 475 The following testimony shows that Adams sold heroin and a rifle at the same time to Sergeant Arkenau while Arkenau was posing as a dope peddler: 476 Q. Did you eventually purchase anything? 477 A. Yes, I did. After examining the heroin, the white powder that appeared to be heroin to me, I agreed to purchase that tablespoon for $350, and I agreed on the rifle for $30. I gave Edwin Adams $380 for both items. 478 The point we are making with all of this evidence is that there was ample reason for the judge and jury to conclude that this was a highly integrated enterprise. All nine of the appellants worked continually in close association in the main thing of the enterprise the marketing of heroin. Seven of the nine, Adams, Sutton, Hensley, Harris, Rankin, Holmes and Craven, were directly involved in the subsidiary stolen goods fencing aspect of the enterprise, or in the case of Rankin and Craven, were intimately familiar with it. 479 Appellants Carter and Elkin were the heroin suppliers for the main thing of the enterprise and benefited directly from its subsidiary fencing and mail fraud operations. 480 This exhaustive evidentiary record offered the judge and jury in this case proof of every aspect of the 75-page indictment.