Court Opinion

ID: 9453586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:18:17.162836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:43.365824
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR ORDER DENYING ORIGINAL PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In our view, the district court exercised sound discretion in declaring a mistrial as to appellant and another defendant at the first trial of this case. The trial judge, who was present and able to evaluate the situation, saw quite clearly that the jury was unable to agree on a verdict, and we will not interfere with the exercise of judgment on his part which we believe was proper under the circumstances. Nothing submitted in the exhaustive briefs of new counsel for appellant, in connection with the present motion (including the citation of Dow-num v. United States, 372 U.S. 734, 83 S.Ct. 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 (1963), which is inapposite because the facts differ radically from those here), causes us to change our original opinion that the cir*292cumstances attendant to the declaration of a mistrial in the first trial did not bar a future trial on the same indictment because of asserted double jeopardy.
In the present motion counsel for appellant has injected for the first time in the case the principles of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). (The present trial in this case occurred after Miranda.) Miranda is sought to be made applicable here in connection with statements given by the defendant to an FBI agent in that appellant should have been informed additionally that he had the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, during the questioning. But Miranda is inapplicable because appellant was not in custody or deprived of his freedom in any significant way. The first contact with FBI Agent Scott occurred by telephone on May 13,1964, and was initiated by appellant. No incriminating information was supplied or requested, Agent Scott informing appellant that he was making a routine investigation. Later, on February 11 and 12, 1965, appellant gave Agent Scott oral statements relative to his acquaintance with Sergeant Offutt and with the purchase of some helicopter blades. Appellant also signed a written statement prepared by Agent Scott dated February 12, 1965, which set forth his business relationship with Offutt. We have carefully examined the written statement of appellant as well as his direct testimony given at the trial of the case and find that they are substantially the same as to the facts and circumstances of the meeting with Offutt and the transactions which appellant had with him. Nowhere in these statements did appellant incriminate himself. He was warned by the agent in advance that he did not have to make a statement, that any statement he made could be used against him in a court of law, and that he was entitled to consult an attorney before giving any statement at all. There was no compulsive or coercive atmosphere existent during the taking of such statements. No objection was made to the use of the statements, oral or written, by appellant’s counsel at the trial. Of course, appellant’s version of the facts as reflected in his oral and written statements differs substantially from the testimony of Sergeant Offutt who was a principal prosecution witness against him at the trial. Offutt, who had entered a plea of guilty and was then serving his sentence, testified in considerable detail to the theft (with appellant’s knowledge) from the United States Army and delivery to appellant of Army helicopter parts and supplies of a value (civilian price) in excess of a half million dollars, for which Offutt was paid at least fifty thousand dollars by appellant. Undoubtedly this was seriously damaging evidence to appellant’s defense.
It is difficult to see how appellant was prejudiced by the statements (consistent with his defense) made to the FBI agent, which appellant corroboated on direct examination when he took the stand in his own defense and, among other things, testified that what was contained in the written statement “is essentially correct.”
Reconsideration of our order denying the original petition for rehearing is denied.