Court Opinion

ID: 9545675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:17:20.823152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:20.124222
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
The factual basis on which it is sought to hold petitioner may be outlined as follows: Alfred Pearson worked in a radio store in Los Angeles. He became heartily disliked by the people in the neighborhood of the store because of his unfair dealings in connection with the repair and sale of radios. Some members of the Los Angeles police force, including petitioner, who were disturbed by complaints made to them concerning Pearson’s practices, also disliked him. One particular alleged incident that was highly provocative consisted of the taking by Pearson of a widow’s (Mrs. Phillips’) home for an $8.09 radio repair bill. The tension created by the public’s feeling of animosity was increased by a feature story in a local newspaper concerning that incident. On the afternoon of Saturday, March 19,1949, Pearson, while at the radio shop, was severely beaten by a group of men, some of whom are the other persons also indicted with petitioner, and are associates of Michael Cohen, a defendant. Those men took a wire recording machine from the shop when they left after the assault and battery inflicted on Pearson. The charge of conspiracy to commit that battery and theft of the recorder arises out of that incident. Apparently the theft of the recording machine is related to an incident occurring earlier the same afternoon when two men (of the assaulting group) made calls on Pearson, representing *62themselves as reporters desiring Pearson’s side of the story concerning Mrs. Phillips and the loss of her home. Pearson took a recording on the wire recorder of the conversation on those visits and advised his visitors that he had done so.
After leaving the radio shop in a car, the men were pursued by a radio police patrol car, not because of the assault and theft, but for a traffic violation observed by the officers in the patrol car. A gun, tire irons, and other articles were thrown from the pursued car and finally the occupants surrendered and were arrested under menace of the armed officers in the patrol car. The suspects were taken to a police substation (Wilshire Station), and were released after being there a short time. They w.ere not booked, and the articles discarded by them were returned to them. An amateur photographer had taken photographs of the field arrest, and there is evidence that after the release, an attempt was made by Cohen to purchase those pictures from a local newspaper with the idea of suppressing them. The circumstances relating to the release of the suspects, and the attempt to suppress the pictures, constitute the sole basis of the charge of conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice against petitioner and others embraced in the indictment here under attack.
In order to connect petitioner Lorenson (a captain in the Los Angeles police force and assigned to “downtown” duty with the police commission) with the conspiracy, the prosecution refers to evidence that Lorenson did not like Pearson ; Pearson had sued Lorenson and others charging a conspiracy to ruin his business; at the instance of Lorenson, Pearson had been arrested several times, but Pearson was not convicted except in one case; on the Friday before the day of the assault, Lorenson asked Jerome Weber (see Weber v. Superior Court, post, p. 68 [216 P.2d 871]), an attorney, to represent Mrs. Phillips in connection with an effort to recover her home and said he would talk to Mrs. Phillips about it, and thereafter went to the Wilshire Substation and talked to the acting captain (Swan) in charge, about Pearson and the Phillips matter; thereafter Lorenson spoke to Mrs. Phillips concerning the employment of Weber and then obtained Weber’s agreement to take the case. On Friday afternoon, Lorenson received a telephone call from a person whose name he did not recall, saying there would be pickets at the Pearson Radio Shop the next day publicizing the Phillips affair; however, the call was from Mr. Satchell, representative of the AVest Adams Merchants’ Association, for he testified that he *63had called Lorenson that afternoon to inquire whether it would be illegal to peacefully picket Pearson’s place. Eist, one of Cohen’s associates and a defendant, obtained picket signs Saturday morning. After the suspects had been arrested, but before arriving at the Wilshire Station, Weber called the station and inquired whether anyone had been arrested in connection with a disturbance at Pearson's place and, on being informed that no one had been brought in, requested that he be informed if anyone was, in order that he could come to the station before they were booked. Burt Mold, another defendant (see Mold v. Superior Court, post, p. 73 [216 P.2d 874]), was at Weber’s office at the time and interceded in the telephone conversation to request that courtesies be extended to Weber, he knowing some of the officers at the station, and inquiring as to whether one of the assaulting group (Ogul) had been brought in. About the time of this call, Lorenson received a telephone call from a man representing himself to be a newspaper reporter asking if he had heard of the trouble at Pearson’s and he was told of it. He thought the reporter’s name was Beacon or Bacon. Lorenson then called the Wilshire Station and asked if they had any pickets from Pearson’s and stated that it would be “too bad if some pickets got in trouble by being pushed around or getting pushed around at Pearson’s place.” Later that afternoon, Lorenson called Benson, a newspaper reporter, and asked what the “deal” was on Pearson. Benson said six men had been arrested and released, to which Lorenson replied “Oh,” and said Pearson was no good. The direct cause of the release of the suspects was a telephone order to the station from Acting Captain Swan. The officer at the station (Wolfe) receiving that call told the arresting officers to release the prisoners because “the thing was bigger” than any one of them—that it was done for a captain downtown connected with the police commission who had a grudge against Pearson. The following morning Swan called Lorenson and said Pearson blamed the latter for the attack on Mm and that the arrested suspects had been released. Lorenson did not ask why they had been released. The photographs of the arrest were shown to Swan by the newspaper having them and he expressed surprise and concern.
In connection with the statement by Officer Wolfe to the arresting officers, it appears that Ms reference to a “downtown” captain who had a grudge against Pearson was merely *64Ms conclusion from an unrevealed source, for while the suspects were at this station, he received a telephone call from Acting Captain Swan who was in charge of the station. (There is no evidence that he was called by Lorenson.) It was Swan who told him to release the men—get them out of the station quickly and in a manner that they would not be observed. Be did not say anything about a “downtown” officer who had a grudge against Pearson and gave no reason for the release order. Wolfe said he “gave” them (the arresting officers) what he thought was a “logical” explanation for the release order which opinion was based on nothing more than Ms knowledge that Lorenson did not like Pearson. Be felt that he had to give some explanation to preserve the morale of the force.
Lorenson’s duties required Mm to investigate complaints by people claiming to have been cheated and many of such were against Pearson.
Summarizing, it appears that Lorenson disliked Pearson, this dislike arising from several incidents occurring in the course of his duties as police officer, and he was taking some steps to have Mrs. Phillips’ interests protected against Pearson’s avarice. Thus, the most that may be inferred is that he had a motive to participate in retaliation against Pearson and that he knew something was afoot (what, does not appear, except possibly lawful picketing) concerning Pearson, and that he instructed an officer at WilsMre Station that such lawful “pickets” should not be badly treated.
In an endeavor to make a case from the evidence presented to the grand jury, the majority opimon indulges in unsupportable inferences and magmfies certain facts out of proportion to their true significance. For illustration, on the latter score, it is said petitioner “hated” and “intensely” disliked Pearson. There is no evidence of that; only dislike is shown. The arrests of Pearson by petitioner on former occasions carries no imputation of hate. They were made on complaints by citizens and in the line of petitioner’s special police duties. There is not a scintilla of evidence that petitioner enlisted “the aid of the other defendants to punish Pearson.” It is not true that the person who called Lorenson on Friday afternoon about picketing Pearson was unknown. Petitioner merely said he did not recall his name, and, as above stated, the caller was one of Pearson’s neighbors, a member of a merchants’ association, and one of the group who were incensed at Pearson’s dealings. It is said, in connection with petitioner’s reference to a call by a reporter concerning trouble at Pear*65son’s store, that no such person as “Beacon or Bacon” was shown to be a reporter. Petitioner had no obligation to make such a showing.
The majority infers that the recording machine was taken to protect the persons assaulting Pearson, but that does not connect petitioner with crime. Even if the grand jury may disbelieve petitioner’s denials, there still is nothing left. An inference of guilt cannot be deduced from a denial thereof. The majority concedes that there was only a “suspicion” or a “strong suspicion” that petitioner was involved, and then quotes from McFarland v. Superior Court, 88 Cal.App.2d 153 [198 P.2d 318], that “without explanation or contradiction of those facts,” they are enough. But here we have both explanation and contradiction. As I said before, we have nothing more than a possible motive on petitioner’s part coupled with a foreknowledge that something was going to happen. That foreknowledge was clearly and adequately explained.
Clearly the majority is relying upon nothing more than suspicion which is neither “reasonable or probable cause” as required by the 1949 amendment to section 995 of the Penal Code, nor is it “some” evidence as is required by Greenberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 319 [121 P.2d 713]. While it is true that the evidence before the grand jury need not be equal to that required for a conviction—eliminate all reasonable doubt (see Greenberg v. Superior Court, supra; People v. McRae, 31 Cal.2d 184 [187 P.2d 741]; People v. McGee, 31 Cal.2d 229 [187 P.2d 706]; People v. Tallman, 27 Cal.2d 209 [163 P.2d 857]; People v. Mitchell, 27 Cal.2d 678 [166 P.2d 10]; People v. Nagle, 25 Cal.2d 216 [153 P.2d 344]), still it must do more than establish a mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion. As stated in Dong Haw v. Superior Court, 81 Cal.App.2d 153, 158 [183 P.2d 724], involving a test of an indictment on prohibition: “Conspiracies cannot be established by suspicions. There must be some evidence. Mere association does not make a conspiracy. There must be evidence of some participation or interest in the commission of the offense.”
Statements from Greenberg v. Superior Court, supra, are urged as support for the claim that any evidence, however tenuous or remote, that may relate both to the petitioner and the crime charged, will support the indictment. I cannot agree with this interpretation of our decision therein. It is true that this court there stated that the testimony before the *66grand jury “upon which the indictment was based contains no evidence even remotely supporting the charges made against the petitioner” (19 Cal.2d, at p. 321), and that “If there is some evidence to support the indictment, the courts will not inquire into its sufficiency.” (19 Cal.2d, at p. 322.) These statements should not be construed as requiring the denial of the writ whenever any evidence concerning the petitioner has been presented to the grand jury. Evidence that will support an indictment must be relevant to the commission of the crime charged. Evidence that does no more than establish that the petitioner and the alleged perpetrators of the crime knew each other, or that only places the petitioner on the periphery of the events that are the basis of the indictment is no evidence within the meaning of the Greenberg case. (See Dong Haw v. Superior Court, supra, p. 158.) An indictment is supported by “some” evidence only when that evidence connects the petitioner with the commission of the crime.
We should not lose sight of the fact that this indictment was based on an alleged conspiracy. The only evidence that will support such an indictment is evidence that will connect the petitioner with the “promotion of the venture” that is the basis of the indictment. (United States v. Falcone, 109 F.2d 579, 581.) Without such evidence, acts done by other persons, with whom there is evidence of petitioner’s lawful association, cannot be permitted to support an indictment. In this connection, the remarks of Mr. Justice Jackson in Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 [69 S.Ct. 716, 723, 93 L.Ed. 790], are particularly pertinent:
“As a practical matter, the accused is often confronted by a hodge-podge of acts and statements by others which he may never have authorized or intended or even known about, but which help to persuade the jury of existence of the conspiracy itself. In other words, a conspiracy often is proved by evidence that is admissible only on the theory that conspiracy existed. The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury ... all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction . . .
“A co-defendant in a conspiracy trial occupies an uneasy seat. There generally will be evidence of wrongdoing by somebody. It is difficult for the individual to make his own case stand on its merits in the minds of jurors who are ready to believe that birds of a feather are flocked together.”
Viewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, it can only be said that wrongdoing by someone was established *67and that petitioner was in some insubstantial way generally associated with some of the wrongdoers and placed on the periphery of the events that constituted the wrongdoing. Petitioner disliked Pearson because of the latter’s alleged unfair practices; he engaged petitioner Weber (post, p. 68) to represent a plaintiff (Mrs. Phillips) in a case against Pearson based upon those practices. There is evidence that he was informed that Pearson’s shop was going to be picketed by irate housewives. There is no evidence that he knew that the picketing would not be peaceful or that it would not be conducted by housewives. There is evidence that he subsequently learned that the picketing had resulted in injury to someone and the arrest of the pickets, but there is no evidence that he was then aware of their identity or that he took any action to obtain their release as charged in the indictment. None of these acts were unlawful or unusual. They do not constitute even “some” evidence of a conspiracy. The evidence falls short of showing any agreement between petitioner and others to engage in the perpetration of a crime. It does no more than establish that he, among many others besides the conspirators, disliked a person against whom a conspiracy was brewing and that he had some foreknowledge and knew some of the conspirators. There is no evidence within the meaning of the Greenberg ease. (See People v. Yant, 26 Cal.App.2d 725, 736 [80 P.2d 506]; People v. Rodriguez, 37 Cal.App.2d 290 [99 P.2d 363]; People v. Zoffel, 35 Cal.App.2d 215 [95 P.2d 160]; People v. Weber, 7 Cal.App.2d 620, 622 [46 P.2d 222]; People v. Jordan, 24 Cal.App.2d 39, 51 [74 P.2d 519]; People v. Long, 7 Cal.App.2d 27 [93 P. 387]; People v. Stevens, 68 Cal. 113 [8 P. 712]; People v. Savinovich, 59 Cal.App. 240 [210 P. 526].)
Turning to the statutory requirement of reasonable or probable cause (Pen. Code, § 995), we find the general rule stated: “The term ‘probable’ has been defined to mean ‘having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, yet leaves room for doubt. ’ ... In other words, to authorize a committing magistrate to hold a defendant to answer, the facts which are stated before him must induce a reasonable probability that all the acts have been done which constitute the offense charged, that the crime charged was committed by the accused, ...” (7 Cal.Jur. 982.) [Emphasis added.] Not only is there not more evidence for guilt than against, but there is none of guilt.
*68The majority opinion in this ease holds that "suspicion” or "possibility of guilt” is all that is required to support a grand jury indictment. This is akin to holding that guilt by association should be the rule, instead of the philosophy underlying all American jurisprudence that before a person can be charged with crime, there must be reasonable and probable cause as a basis for such charge.
As there is no evidence whatever connecting petitioner with the crime charged in the indictment in this case, I would grant the writ of prohibition prayed for.
Gibson, C. J., and Traynor, J., concurred.