Document: 362 U.S. 511 80 S.Ct. 945 4 L.Ed.2d 921 Max SCHAFFER and Norman, Schaffer, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES of America. Hyman KARP Benjamin T. Marco, Petitioners, v. UNITED Nos. 111, 122. Argued March 24, 1960. Decided May 16, Rehearing Denied June 27, See 363 858, 1605. Mr. Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Schaffer Norman petitioners. Harris B. Steinberg, New York City, Karp John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Involved here are questions concerning joinder defendants under Rule 8(b) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.,1 whether shipments stolen goods in interstate commerce may be aggregated as to value order meet statutory minimum $5,000, U.S.C. § 2314, U.S.C.A. 2314.2 2 The indictment charged transportation known have been having a excess $5,000. In contained three substantive counts. Count two Schaffers (petitioners No. 111) Stracuzzas (defendants below, who either pleaded guilty or had charges against them nolle prossed at trial) with transporting ladies' children's wearing apparel from Pennsylvania. petitioner Marco similar movement West Virginia. 3 like Massachusetts. fourth final count all these parties conspiracy commit offenses first petitioners were tried on simultaneously single trial. On motion acquittal close Government's case, court dismissed failure proof. This was denied, however, counts, finding that no prejudice would result joint Upon submission counts jury detailed charge, each found thereafter fined sentenced prison. Court Appeals affirmed convictions, likewise existed by reason 266 F.2d 435. We granted certiorari. 361 809, 58, 58. allegations met explicit provisions defendants, we cannot find clearly erroneous findings trial resulted As requirements value, hold defendant aggregated. judgments therefore affirmed. consider question Procedure. It is clear initial permissible Rule, which allows 'in same * if they alleged participated act transaction series acts transactions constituting an offense offenses.' denied so indictment. problem remaining whether, after dismissal before cases jury, severance should ordered 143 requires separate 'it appears government prejudiced information such together *.' Under circumstances here, think there prejudice. 5 admitted common center scheme transport goods. four some steps goods, although involved shipments. employed almost identical language violations criminal statute during period manner. made proof over-all operation competent variations related specific proven petitioner. separately different witnesses. included entirely invoices other exhibits, identified applying only received shown painstaking instructions effect. short, carefully compartmentalized propriety prior not assailed.4 When Government rested, filed their it sustained count. then pressed decided evidence sufficient case submitted charge characterized petitioners' counsel being 'extremely fair.' meticulously set out admonished 'not take into consideration any one apply inference otherwise defendant.' 6 Petitioners contend nevertheless implicit continuation They say resulting could cured cautionary instructions, judge left discretion. overlook, authorized subsequent controlled 14, provides trials where shown, but both affirmatively none present. contrary this record. Nor can fashion hard-and-fast formula that, when fails, error matter law. do emphasize, situation, has continuing duty stages grant does appear. And where, originally justified turns lack support evidence, particularly sensitive possibility However, failed show call 14 even request new Instead relied motions acquittal. Moreover, acutely aware strict his charge—not testimony consider, also available guilt respective terms misjoinder. 7 United States Dietrich,5 single-count offense, McElroy States,6 linked offenses. Neither Kotteakos States,7 place chief reliance, apposite. That turned harmless-error rule, its application serious variance between There highly probable substantial injurious effect.' 328 page 776, 66 1253. dissent agreed test injury 'depends special case,' id., 777, 1254; reasoned 'nonexistent' relating used convict another, declared 'dangers conjure up abstract ones.' Id., 778, 1254. central issue Kotteakos, reached instant since proper Bule shown. 8 individual connected amounted less than $5,000 each, appeared total merchandise shipped several over though shipment less. permitted aggregation limit,8 claimed error. A sensible reading properly attributes Congress view enough relationship Act defines 'value' aggregate.9 legislative history makes computed 'series transactions.'10 seems plain engaged transactions, phase case.11 9 122 further certain prosecutor's remarks summation improper prejudicial. agree treatment Appeals, see need elaboration. 10 Affirmed. 11 DOUGLAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK, BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 12 stolen1 $5,000.2 13 Counts 1, 2, Schaffers, Stracuzzas, Pennsylvania 15, 1953, July 1953. 122, Virginia 11, 15 Karp, Massachusetts 21, 16 17 Two (who seemed brains behind various illegal transactions) suspended sentences. third Stracuzza disposed nol. pros. present trial,3 principal witness Government. At count4 Indeed, appear arguable linking conspiracy. Over objection continued instructing considered separately, another. 19 unrelated crimes Procedure 'if offenses.'5 20 while conceding try count, concluded showing established District did abuse discretion denying trials. 21 I view. believe once dismissed, presented prosecution sought indictments wholly other. 22 8(b)6 contemplates types situations—first, participate jointly 'act transaction'; second, These evidenced fact utterly failed. 'series,' within meaning 8(b). 23 Van Devanter, circuit judge, Dietrich, C.C., 126 664, 670, said: 24 'Much said practice which, subject invested enable justice accused, permits more severally distinct class grade, punishment, committed time form parts transaction. respect necessarily throw light upon others, connection frequently difficult impossible others.' 25 States, 164 76, 31, 41 L.Ed. 355, long Rules, held consolidate charging (arson assault intent kill) six people named one. rest mere discretion'; those law: 26 '(S)uch same, nowise transaction, must depend state facts them. embarrassed defense, attention distracted passing independent transactions.' 81, 33. 27 sound rule consistent what Devanter Dietrich case. somehow nexus lest blend defendants. sense words 'the transactions' offense. nothing Karp's nor Marco's Virginia; latter anything Schaffers' possible disparate dealt deals. But happenstance make strangers Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, except house Stracuzza. Yet customers shop, enterprise, become participants transactions,' unless others relation 28 participation series' 'alleged' Such allegation, sure, saves attack preliminary stages. becomes apparent mockery allegation alone, now false, continue 29 750, 773, 1239, 1252, 90 1557, disapproved eight conspiracies kind 'when among lies man all.' Guilt us remains personal. 'The dangers transference another across line separating conspiracies, subconsciously otherwise, great,' 'that really right taken place.' 774, 1252. danger clear. Reasons founded principle person codefendant whose crime others. Instructions given admonitions kept separate. district conscientiously effort here. crimes, mounting likely affect sure way protect trials, especially unconnected, dealing person, house, establishment. By offenses, subtle bond created never acted unison; 147 implicit. 30 unlike verdict escape quandary themselves. Once supported presents issues decide. What motivate particular returning known. 31 Conspiracy perplexing problems concerned courts. Krulewitch 336 440, 69 716, 93 790; Delli Paoli 352 232, 77 294, 278. While times join overt Pinkerton 640, 1180, 1489, multiplication. loose trying bring ties best extremely tenuous often criticized.8 allow put dangerous uses sanction approved 32 reverse remand causes provides: 'Two count.' relevant part: 'Whoever transports foreign wares, merchandise, securities money, more, knowing stolen, converted fraud; 'Shall $10,000 imprisoned ten years, both.' 2311, far material here: "Value' means face, par, market whichever greatest, aggregate securities, money referred shall constitute thereof.' 'If together, election provide whatever relief requires.' grounds tendered denied. Stracuzza, 158 F.Supp. 552. 664. 1896, 355. 1946, 1557. note supra. H.R.Rep. 1462, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2; H.R.Conf.Rep. 1599, 3. Andrews Cir., 108 511, number individuals theory design recipients. Andrews, involves defendant, quite unnecessary justify design. 522. violate 659, receiving concealing dismissed. 5, Annual Report Attorney General 1925, pp. 6; O'Dougherty, Prosecution Defense Indictments, Brooklyn L.Rev. 263; Developments Law: Conspiracy, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 920, 980—983; Note, Association—Three Words Search Meaning, U. Chi.L.Rev. 148; Dilemma: Group Crime Protection Individual Defendants, 62 276; Falcone, 109 579, 581; Liss, 137 995, 1003 (dissenting opinion).

Category: 0