Court Opinion

ID: 9479755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:28:18.268442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:15.834270
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PHILLIPS, District Judge.
In our last disposition of this case, we affirmed the convictions below of all seven defendant-appellants. From this affirmance, five of the appellants seek rehearing and/or rehearing en banc concerning various aspects of the panel opinion. We grant rehearing to discuss the issues raised. For the reasons set forth below, we reaffirm these convictions.
I.
These appellants, Phil Pinelli, Robert Sheehan, and Aaron Mosko, seek rehearing and/or rehearing en banc concerning the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. In their initial appeals, appellants argued 18 U.S.A. § 1955 was void for vagueness by the use of the word “conduct” in the statute which was undefined. Appellants further asserted the unconstitutional vagueness in Section 1955 was demonstrated by the conflicting interpretations given to the word “conduct” by various lower courts. Our panel opinion rejected these arguments and upheld the constitutionality of the statute.
Appellants now argue the panel opinion conflicts with prior circuit precedent in United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.1979) and United States v. Boss, 671 F.2d 396 (10th Cir.1982). On rehearing, appellants urge the panel’s construction of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 based on Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978), creates criminal liability for any degree of participation in an illegal gambling business, except simple betting. Therefore, appellants argue the “any participation” standard of the panel opinion is inconsistent with, or overrules by implication, the “necessary” versus “helpful” distinction drawn by our circuit in Morris and Boss. We cannot subscribe to this reasoning.
Our previous opinion examined the terminology, discernible legislative intent, and construction given to Section 1955 by other circuits deciding the issue of vagueness. This examination was conducted to determine whether Section 1955 defined the offense of conducting an illegal gambling business with sufficient specificity that ordinary persons could understand what activities are prohibited. In this regard, we held that the offense was sufficiently defined to give minimal guidance to law enforcement officials. Further, we held the statute was not vague.
We remain unpersuaded that conflicting lower court decisions demonstrate vagueness. It would not have been “possible or practical for Congress to outline” all of the possible ways a person “might be said to conduct a gambling business.” United States v. McCoy, 539 F.2d 1050, 1058 n. 8 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 2185, 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977). Moreover, the contours of federal jurisdiction under Section 1955 have not yet been fully delineated. McCoy, 539 F.2d at 1058. Contrary to appellants’ suggestion, our previous opinion is squarely in line with the teachings of the Supreme Court that stat*1478utes are not automatically vague “simply because difficulty is found in determining whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language.” United States v. National Dairy Prod. Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32, 83 S.Ct. 594, 597, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963) (citations omitted).
Our circuit’s decisions since 1973 illustrate our efforts to develop these “contours” of Section 1955. In United States v. Smaldone, 485 F.2d 1333 (10th Cir.1973), cert. dismissed, 416 U.S. 917, 94 S.Ct. 1625, 40 L.Ed.2d 119, cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1934, 40 L.Ed.2d 286 (1974), we recognized Congress’ intent to incorporate within Section 1955’s prohibition all participants except those who actually wagered. Smaldone, 485 F.2d at 1351. Then in 1979, in Morris, we found that a person who allowed principals in a bookmaking operation to use her apartment and who received telephone messages for the principals was not a conductor of the business, since her actions were merely helpful to the operation of the enterprise. Morris, 612 F.2d at 494. Finally, in 1982 in Boss, we refined the contours still further. We held a waitress who served drinks to dance hall customers, who were gambling in an illegal dice room at the hall, did not fall within the scope of Section 1955’s prohibition against one who “conducts” a gambling operation. Boss, 671 F.2d at 402. The Boss court held that Section 1955 contemplates participants in an illegal gambling operation performing duties “necessary” to the operation of the gambling business. Id. at 400. The waitresses who did nothing more than serve drinks to gamblers were not “necessary” to the business within the meaning of the Act.
Today, we reaffirm that the statute is sufficiently explicit to afford fair warning to bookmakers contemplating conducting business transactions with other bookmakers as in this case. Additionally, we reaffirm the statute is explicit enough to provide minimal guidance to law enforcement. In reaching these decisions, we do not question, upset, reverse, reject or overrule this circuit’s precedent in Boss and Morris.
Appellant Sheehan reasserts his argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is unconstitutional as applied to him. Sheehan complains that the Court failed to explain why we were unpersuaded by his contentions regarding the small number of bets and their dollar value, and their ratio to the overall number of bets and dollar value. The evidence against Sheehan is amply described in our previous opinion. We reaffirm that Sheehan’s activities constituted an “integral part of the business.” Morris, 612 F.2d at 494. We further find that the Morris and Boss cases gave Sheehan adequate warning his conduct constituted a criminal offense.
Finally, appellant David Pinelli argues a review of the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him demonstrates that the language of Section 1955 was not adequate to give him notice that his actions constituted conducting an illegal gambling business involving five or more persons. We have again reviewed the evidence against David Pinelli. We affirm that the evidence demonstrated David Pinelli’s joint interest in the partnership with his brother, Phil, where lay-off wagering and line exchange routinely and regularly occurred among the appellants. Clearly, the statute and our prior decision in Boss gave David Pinelli the notice he claims was lacking. Boss held where there is sufficient connection between distinct bookmaking operations, they are viewed as one gambling business under § 1955, because all the operations involved some actual gambling function necessary to the illegal operation. Boss, 671 F.2d at 399.
II.
Two of the appellants, David Pinelli and Robert Sheehan, request rehearing and/or rehearing en banc urging the insufficiency of the evidence to convict them under 18 U.S.C. § 1955. They argue the evidence must be measured against the standards enunciated by this Court in United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.1979), and United States v. Boss, 671 F.2d 396 (10th Cir.1982).
Appellant David Pinelli acknowledges that the panel opinion summarized the evidence presented against him at trial. Opinion at 1468. He claims the evidence presented below showed only that Pinelli *1479was a partner with his brother, Phil Pinelli, in a gambling partnership. David Pinelli asserts, however, that the evidence failed to show he was involved in any gambling business conducted by the other co-defendants. Therefore, he argues the panel erred in finding evidence sufficient to convict him of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955.
Robert Sheehan also seeks rehearing contending the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction for being a conductor of the illegal gambling business alleged in Count One of the Indictment. Sheehan repeats the three arguments he raised to the panel in support of these contentions. First, Sheehan urges, the evidence was not sufficient to establish a linkage between the individual gambling offices necessary to establish the five conductors for Section 1955 liability. Second, Sheehan explains the evidence was insufficient to link Sheehan to appellant Mosko’s office because there was no showing the bets discussed between Sheehan and Mosko were “lay-offs” as defined by case law. Finally, Sheehan stresses the evidence was insufficient to show he performed a “necessary” function in Mosko’s operation as required in Morris and Boss. Sheehan’s rehearing brief at 1-3.
The panel opinion summarized the evidence presented against appellants David Pinelli and Robert Sheehan. Opinion at 1468. Clearly, the taped conversations between Sheehan and Mosko demonstrated Sheehan was placing bets with third persons on behalf of Aaron Mosko, and show Sheehan personally used the phrase “lay anything off” in such discussions. Agent Holmes described Sheehan as a “beard” for Mosko who placed wagers with other bookmakers on Mosko’s behalf. The evidence against David Pinelli amply demonstrated his joint interest in the partnership with his brother, Phil, wherein lay-off wagering and line exchange routinely and regularly occurred among the appellants.
The jury was instructed concerning the “necessary” nature of the function played by each individual, [Vol. 23, p. 13], the necessity of a “showing of sufficient connection between gambling operations so that they are viewed as one operation,” [Vol. 23, pp. 13-14], and the definitions of lay-off bets [Vol. 23, p. 14].
The panel has again examined the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the government, as required, and finds “there is substantial evidence from which a jury might reasonably find” the appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Morris, 612 F.2d at 492 (citing United States v. Jorgenson, 451 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 959, 30 L.Ed.2d 793 (1972)). The Court finds the activities of David Pinelli and Robert Sheehan constituted an “integral part” of this illegal gambling business. Morris, 612 F.2d at 494. In addition, without being financially interested in the business, “a bookmaker may still place lay-off bets with others which make them conductors of his business as insurers.” Morris, 612 F.2d at 493. Finally, here, we find “sufficient connections between the gambling operations so that they are viewed as one gambling business under § 1955, all the operations involving, however, some actual gambling function necessary to the illegal operation.” Boss, 671 F.2d at 399.
Accordingly, the panel reaffirms its finding of sufficient evidence.
III.
Appellant Aaron Mosko claims the trial court improperly instructed the jury. Mosko seizes on the use of the word “aiding” in an instruction concerning Colorado’s statutory prohibition of professional gambling and argues it may have allowed the jury to convict him upon a diluted standard of liability. In support of this proposition Mosko relies on United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.1979). A full analysis of the Morris case shows that it has no application to this jury instruction controversy.
In Morris, seven persons were tried for operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. Defendant Jarvis was also charged with aiding and abetting the commission of a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2. During the *1480trial, the government produced evidence to show Jarvis allowed certain co-defendants to use her apartment, took telephone messages for one defendant and informed a caller where Morris could be reached. At the end of the trial, the jury convicted Jarvis of violating both Section 1955 and Section 2.
On appeal, our circuit upheld Jarvis’ conviction as an aider and abettor but found the evidence was not sufficient to sustain her conviction as a conductor or owner of an illegal gambling business under Section 1955. Morris, 612 F.2d at 494-95. The Morris panel thus distinguished conduct amounting to participation in the operation or direction of a gambling business in violation of Section 1955 from aiding and abetting.
The Morris court then discussed the specific instructions given by the trial court including the sequence of instructions. The trial judge had given an aiding and abetting instruction immediately following the instruction as to the elements of the substantive offense under Section 1955 and immediately preceding the definitions of certain words used in 18 U.S.C. § 1955. Morris, 612 F.2d at 496. It was determined that a substantive offense under Section 1955 required the participation of at least five persons, and “it necessarily follows that an aider and abettor could not be counted as one of the required five persons.” Id. at 496 (citing Morgan v. United States, 159 F.2d 85, 87 (10th Cir.1947); United States v. Doughty, 460 F.2d 1360, 1363 (7th Cir.1972)).
The Morris court concluded that upon retrial, in order to avoid confusion, the jury should be instructed that the “substantive offense, including the five person requirement, must be proved before any defendant can be convicted as an aider and abettor and that a person satisfying only the aider and abettor requirements cannot be counted as one of the five persons required to establish the substantive offense.” Id. at 496-97.
Using this case as a springboard, Mosko takes issue with the following instruction given by the trial judge in the instant case:
Count I of the indictment charging the Defendants with violating 18 United States Code Section 1955, when I read to you a few moments ago, alleges that the gambling business in question was illegal, as in violation of the various sections of the Colorado Revised Statute.
The Colorado Statute referred to in the indictment prohibits professional gambling. Bookmaking is professional gambling. The Statute also makes it illegal to knowingly transmit or receive any information intended to be used for aiding another to engage in professional gambling with the intent to derive a profit therefrom.
[Vol. 23, pp. 11-12],
Mosko suggests this instruction violates Morris for three reasons. First, the proximity of the “aiding” instruction to the Section 1955 instruction allegedly resulted in a defendant being counted in the jurisdictional five even though only an “aider.” Second, the instructions purportedly allowed a defendant to be counted as a participant in the gambling business prior to a determination of whether the conduct of the defendant met the standards of liability under Section 1955. Finally, the instruction allegedly equated a Section 1955 violation with a violation of the state professional gambling statute defined as “aiding.” Mosko’s rehearing brief at 3. Mosko asserts these three deficiencies could result in a defendant being found guilty if he only “aided” others. Additionally, Mosko urges that if any of the defendants that the jury considered mere aiders were counted with Mosko, the jurisdictional five may have been reached in violation of Morris. Mos-ko’s rehearing reply brief at 3.
The government responds that this case is distinguishable from Morris because the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, by title or substance, was neither charged nor referred to at any time by any party during this trial. The government argues no theory of liability of any appellant as an aider or abettor was argued or inferred by the Government. The government urges that contrary to Mosko’s assertion, the jury was clearly charged that the business had *1481to be in violation of state law, that each defendant had to knowingly participate in the business, and that they could convict only on evidence that met the standard of principal under Section 1955.
We have reviewed all of the instructions given by the trial court, both individually and as a whole. We believe that the focus of the sentence in the challenged instruction in which the word “aiding” occurred was the type of activity which was illegal under the Colorado professional gambling statute. The trial judge instructed the jury that the Colorado gambling statutes made unlawful the acts of anyone who “knowingly transmit[ted] or received any information intended to be used for aiding another to engage in professional gambling....” [Vol. 23, p. 12]. The reason for including an instruction concerning illegal activity under the Colorado statutes was that a violation of state law was one of the elements to be found for a violation of Section 1955. However, the use of the word “aiding” was not in isolation. The trial court instructed more fully concerning the conduct that was necessary to convict under Section 1955:
The term “conduct” as it is used in connection with an alleged illegal gambling business means to perform any act, function or duty which is necessary to the ordinary operation of the illegal gambling business....
... You are instructed that activity, which may be merely helpful to an illegal gambling business, does not make a person a conductor of the illegal gambling business. Thus, only persons with some function necessary to the illegal gambling business may be considered by you in determining whether there are five or more persons conducting the illegal gambling business
[Vol. 23, pp. 12-13],
The trial court further charged:
The word “necessary” is to be distinguished from the word helpful. Necessary means essential. While helpful means of some assistance....
[Vol. 23, p. 13].
We have reviewed the instructions, as a whole, as required, and determined the instructions adequately apprised the jury of the applicable law, United States v. Pepe, 501 F.2d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir.1974), and as a whole gave an accurate statement of the law. United States v. Rothbart, 723 F.2d 752, 754 (10th Cir.1983) (citing United States v. Hudler, 605 F.2d 488, 490 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 961, 100 S.Ct. 1647, 64 L.Ed.2d 236 (1980)).
Here, contrary to Mosko’s assertion, the jury was not charged on an aiding and abetting theory. The reason for the lack of the charge was that no defendant was indicted, charged, nor tried as an aider and abettor. Further, the jury was not given the discretion to convict a defendant who only “aided.” It is clear from the instructions that here the jury was not subjected to the type of confusion which occurred in Morris. The jury was clearly apprised of the standard of culpability needed to convict such individual defendant as a principal. They were expressly charged that evidence of conduct that merely assisted was not sufficient to convict. We thus conclude that the potential for the jury to convict Mosko on a diluted standard of liability was non-existent. Further, the potential for others to have been convicted with Mosko who were merely “aiders” was also non-existent.
IV.
On rehearing, appellant William Bur-bidge requests reversal of his conviction and remand of the case for a new trial. Burbidge argues the panel opinion applied an incorrect standard in reviewing whether the jury’s exposure to extrinsic material in the jury room requires a new trial. The panel opinion applied an abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s ruling on Bur-bidge’s motion for mistrial and request for new trial. Burbidge argues the applicable legal standard in the Tenth Circuit is whether “there is the slightest possibility that harm could have resulted from the *1482jury’s viewing of unadmitted evidence” in which ease “reversal is mandatory.” United States v. Marx, 485 F.2d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 986, 94 S.Ct. 2391, 40 L.Ed.2d 764 (1974). Bur-bidge states the Tenth Circuit recently reaffirmed the standard in Johnston v. Ma-kowski, 823 F.2d 387, 390 (10th Cir.1987), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 1026, 108 S.Ct. 750, 98 L.Ed.2d 763 (1988). Burbidge seeks rehearing in order for the proper standard of review to be applied.
The two eases from our circuit relied upon by Burbidge both involve identified but unadmitted exhibits which were mistakenly given to the jurors to take to the jury room. In Marx, a consent-to-search form and $1,000 in currency were offered into evidence by the government but not admitted by the trial judge in appellant’s bank robbery trial. Marx, 485 F.2d at 1184. Applying the “slightest possibility of harm” standard, our circuit found that the unadmitted evidence viewed by the jury did not constitute prejudicial error. Id.
In Johnston, a police report which defense counsel had used during cross-examination, and which had been marked for identification only, but not received in evidence, found its way into the jury room. Applying the “slightest possibility of harm” standard, our circuit found that appellant’s rights were not violated by the presence of the police report in the jury room during deliberations. Johnston, 823 F.2d at 389-91.
Unlike Marx and Johnston, the present case does not involve exhibits which were offered but not received in evidence. Instead, the extraneous matter was a yellow “post-it” tab attached to an exhibit, which exhibit had been properly received into evidence.
We have again reviewed all the evidence presented against appellant Burbidge, the contents of the “post-it” tab, and the nature of the inquiry from the jury as follows:
Exhibit 66, this is a yellow tablet with a yellow posted piece of paper attached to a page. The yellow posted note says, P. Pinelli, layoff, 11-26-84, and was folded under a page. Is the yellow posted part of the evidence? Jerry Pearson.
[Vol. 24, pp. 3-4].
In addition, we have again reviewed the district court’s consultation with counsel and the district court’s subsequent response to the jury’s question:
Members of the jury, the yellow “posted” tab on Exhibit 66 was not received as a part of the evidence. That tab was mistakenly left on the exhibit when it was received in evidence. It was a note made by government lawyers and refers only to the government’s contention. I have removed the tab and you will completely disregard it in considering the evidence in this case.
... It would be a violation of your oath to give it any consideration.
[Vol. 24, pp. 4-6].
Finally, we have again reviewed the argument of Burbidge’s counsel, in support of his request for mistrial and the district court’s reasons for denying mistrial. We also reviewed Burbidge’s belated motion to interview the jurors filed a week after the completion of the trial, and motion for new trial, together with the district court’s denials.
We believe this situation is much more analogous to United States v. Hueftle, 687 F.2d 1305 (10th Cir.1982), relied upon previously by the panel. In Hueftle, when the jury retired to deliberate concerning charges of trespass at a nuclear plant site, the jury discovered a card reading “They’re Guilty, Nuke’M” among the evidence. They sent a note to the trial judge indicating those jurors who had viewed the card had voted they could ignore it. Hueftle, 687 F.2d at 1308. The trial court, in Hueftle, in addition to giving a cautionary instruction, polled the jury concerning their ability to ignore the card and render fair and impartial verdicts, a step not taken here. On appeal, we held that the inclusion of the card in the jury exhibits was not so blatantly prejudicial that the verdict must be overturned. Hueftle, 687 F.2d at 1310-11. We also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial motion. Id. at 1311.
*1483Like Hueftle, the extraneous matter involved in this ease is a note. Also, like Hueftle, the jury specifically requested direction of the trial judge and received a cautionary instruction. Finally, like Huef-tle, the panel applied the “abuse of discretion” standard.
The Court reaffirms its previous decision that the extraneous matter in this case was merely cumulative of the government’s contention, about which the jury was clearly on notice. Moreover, the “post-it” contention was duplicative of evidence already presented against Burbidge. Specifically, the “layoff” term used on the “post-it” was contained in Exhibits 608, 609, 610 and 611, to which Burbidge made no objection. These exhibits contained summaries of total wages accepted and “layoffs” associated with appellants Phil Pinelli, Aaron Mosko, David Pinelli, and William Burbidge. This evidence, the jury’s obvious attempt to clarify exactly how or whether they were to consider the "post-it,” together with the trial court’s cautionary instruction, and the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, convince us the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for mistrial and request for new trial. United States v. Hueftle, 687 F.2d at 1311.
We hold, however, as our Circuit did in Johnston, that under any standard, appellant Burbidge’s claim fails. Johnston, 823 F.2d at 390.
V.
Finally, two appellants, Aaron Mosko and Robert Sheehan, take issue with the panel’s finding “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of [FBI Agent] Holmes.” Opinion at 1475. The Court has again reviewed this ruling and determined the objections as nonmeritorious.
Our previous judgment is modified to reflect our supplemental opinion on rehearing. The judgments of convictions are AFFIRMED.