Court Opinion

ID: 9465702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:53:23.330361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:19.354025
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The record demonstrates that the able and experienced trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to reopen after the parties had rested and just before final arguments were to begin.
Sound reasons for denial of the motion to reopen are fully set out in the trial court’s memorandum and order denying motions for judgment of acquittal or new trial. See United States v. Callahan, 442 F.Supp. 1213, 1223-25 (D.Minn.1978).1 In substance the trial court found that (1) the motion to reopen was untimely under the circumstances; (2) the prosecution would have been prejudiced by a reopening; and (3) even if defendants had been permitted to *781reopen it was questionable whether Ms. Burt’s (Billstrom’s) testimony would have been admissible in light of Fed.R.Evid. 403. While all of the foregoing factors were appropriately considered by the trial court, I have little difficulty in affirming the trial court’s action solely on the basis that the motion was untimely under the circumstances in the case.
Appellants were furnished the FBI files containing Billstrom’s statements several months before trial. At the remand hearing counsel for appellants admitted Bill-strom’s statements came to their attention about a week after the trial commenced and they first took steps to locate her a week before they rested their defense. However, the original record discloses that the first time counsel for appellants indicated to the court that they had any interest in Billstrom’s testimony was during the afternoon recess on Thursday, the day before resting their case. At that time counsel advised the court that they were having difficulty serving Billstrom. See majority op. n. 13, supra. As a result counsel indicated that they desired to introduce Bill-strom’s FBI statements. The court set the matter for argument the following morning prior to opening the jury session and announced its decision not to admit the Bill-strom statements just before the afternoon session. About one hour later the appellants rested. The Government rested without rebuttal. The jury was excused until Monday.
On Monday at approximately 9:15 a. m. appellants moved to reopen their case for the purpose of presenting the testimony of Ms. Billstrom. During the course of argument on the motion the court made inquiry of Deputy Marshal Redpath as to any prior requests for service of a subpoena. The marshal advised that he was not given a subpoena for service until Friday at 12:30 p. m. and service was completed in three hours.2 The Government objected to the motion to reopen because defendants had knowledge of Billstrom’s statements to the FBI for two months and rested without reservation, knowing full well that a subpoena for Billstrom had been delivered to the marshal for service; and for the further reason that the Government had abandoned plans for rebuttal when defendants rested and its rebuttal witnesses “are now scattered to the winds * * * and it does prejudice us.”
An examination of the voluminous trial record reveals that appellants were represented by able and experienced counsel. I am in complete agreement with the trial court’s observations:
In this situation fairness required denial of the motion to reopen. Defense counsel were at fault for the situation in which they found themselves. The prosecution would have been prejudiced by permitting a reopening. The evidence, if admissible, would have carried a distorted importance. United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1397, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947).
Defense counsel knew early in the trial that the court would not receive the F.B.I. report of the Burt interview because it was hearsay, supra. Defense counsel should have had the Marshal serve her then instead of waiting until the last day. Had defense counsel advised the court and prosecutor on Friday, *782October 28, that the witness had been subpoenaed and they intended to move for reopening on October 31, their motion might have reflected a good faith endeav- or. Of course, knowing the Marshal was serving the subpoena, they should not have rested or they should have rested with reservation to reopen if process was served.
Even if defendants had been permitted to reopen, there still remained the question as to whether Ms. Burt’s testimony would have been admissible in light of Fed.R.Evid. 403, a factor to be considered on a motion to reopen, United States v. Young, 488 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1973). The same considerations discussed above in regard to the admissibility of Ms. Burt’s statement are applicable here, i. e., the fact that hers was one of several alleged kidnap conspiracies and the people she claims were the kidnappers were several among dozens of suspects. These factors reduced substantially any probative worth her testimony might have possessed, making the denial to reopen a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. United States v. Webb, 533 F.2d 391, 395 (8th Cir. 1976).
United States v. Callahan, supra, 442 F.Supp. at 1224-25.
After hearing the arguments on appeal we remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of supplementing the record with respect to the testimony of Ms. Burt (Billstrom) and to clarify the record concerning the effort to obtain Billstrom as a witness, and the circumstances on October 28, 1977, relating to defense counsel’s failure to reserve the right to reopen, and proposed rebuttal evidence available to the Government at trial.3
The district court’s supplemental findings on remand are found in United States v. Callahan, 455 F.Supp. 524 (D.Minn.1978). They are amply supported by the record and cannot be said to be clearly erroneous.
The district court found, inter alia:
At the time defendants rested, both of defendants’ counsel knew a subpoena was in the hands of the United States Marshal for service upon Lynda Burt Billstrom. Notwithstanding this, defendants did not reserve the right to reopen if service was made. This was likely a tactical decision on their part. * * *
When defendants rested, government counsel made his responsive tactical decision — to immediately rest. He did so— abandoning a prepared plan of rebuttal— and released all of his witnesses.
These decisions, reflecting the considered professional judgment of the very competent counsel on each side, were made on Friday, October 28. * * *
******
The value of Mrs. Billstrom’s possible testimony would have been substantially discredited, and probably outweighed, by the potential rebuttal evidence available to the government. It is not reasonable to believe therefore that she could be viewed as a likely helpful witness for defendants. But if she were so viewed, defendants’ counsel should have subpoenaed her long before the last afternoon of trial. She had not even been interviewed, and, contrary to defendants’ assertion in briefs, she was readily available. She testified at the hearing (p. 127) that she was released from prison in March 1975 and stayed in Minnesota. In October 1977, during trial, she was at her home in Winona, Minnesota. She was on state parole at the time and her whereabouts was known to her parole officer as well as to Winona County sheriffs’ officers. Her residence was served by a telephone. Although defendants’ counsel would imply through the testimony of their office investigator that Mrs. Bill-strom was avoiding service of process, there is no evidence to support this. She appeared to be anything but an unwilling witness at the remand hearing. The U.S. Marshal had no trouble finding and serving her in Winona within three hours of *783the time the subpoena was given him the last day of trial.
Counsel for defendants, if they valued Mrs. Billstrom’s possible testimony, should have interviewed her early on during the approximately four months they had her F.B.I. statements; and, if they found her potential testimony helpful to their case, they should have subpoenaed her to testify at least one or two days before resting. They make no reasonable excuse for not doing so. * * *
It would have been for the jury to weigh and decide the worth of her testimony in the light of the government’s rebuttal to it, but the relevancy of her testimony, its admissibility and the weight to be accorded it were not reached during trial because defendants did not tender it until three days after both sides had rested and just before jury arguments were to begin. Whether defense counsel’s actions in not promptly interviewing and timely subpoenaing Mrs. Billstrom were the result of inadvertence or deliberate trial tactics, they in either case did not, and do not now, constitute sufficient grounds for reopening the case or granting a new trial.
On the whole record, the court is satisfied it was a proper exercise of its discretion to deny the motion to reopen. See, e. g., United States v. Dossey, 558 F.2d 1336, 1339 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Webb, 533 F.2d 391, 395 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Aiken, 373 F.2d 294, 300 (2d Cir. 1967) (factually on point).
United States v. Callahan, supra, 455 F.Supp. at 525-27.
I am in complete agreement with the trial court that on the whole record it was a proper exercise of its discretion to deny the motion to reopen. It appears to me that under the majority opinion trial court discretion is accorded little deference. See United States v. Aiken, 373 F.2d 294, 300 (2d Cir. 1967), where the district court was faced with a similar situation and denied the application to reopen, the court of appeals affirmed, holding such was not an abuse of discretion.
I am in accord with the majority’s disposition of other errors reached in its opinion, appellants’ claims numbered 1, 3, 4 and 5, except with reference to claim No. 1, wherein the majority agreed there was a submissible issue of guilt, although not a strong one. After reviewing the evidence I concur with the trial court’s observation: “[T]he government presented a strong case for guilt as to each defendant albeit much of its evidence was circumstantial rather than direct. * * * This was a permissible verdict well supported by the evidence, and in my view, a proper verdict.” United States v. Callahan, supra, 442 F.Supp. at 1231-32. For the trial court’s full discussion on sufficiency of the evidence, see id. at 1228-32. The defendants were represented by able and experienced lawyers who conducted the defense with great vigor.
The majority did not reach claims numbered 6, 7, 8 and 9 in view of its action in ordering a new trial. I have considered these claims and find that the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that they were not adequate grounds for a new trial. Claim 6 with respect to appellants’ contention that the Government, by suppressing evidence that Callahan passed a spelling test containing some of the words misspelled in the ransom notes, denied appellants due process of law in not ordering a new trial is without merit. See district court’s discussion at 442 F.Supp. 1226—28.
The district court’s rejection of claims of juror misconduct in conducting experiments during the course of the trial is well founded (claim 7). The conduct did not reach the level of impropriety and in any event was not prejudicial. See district court’s discussion at 442 F.Supp. 1225—26.
In claim 8 appellants contended that the district court violated appellants’ right to be present at every stage of the trial when, without notice to appellants or their counsel, it communicated with the jury. In its original opinion at 442 F.Supp. 1226, the district court stated it did not communicate directly or indirectly with the jury except in the courtroom with all parties present. *784Further, that on November 2 when the jury told the marshal it wanted to consult with the court, and the marshal telephoned the court at his home, the court told the marshal to tell the jurors if they wanted further instructions or counsel to communicate with him in writing the next morning when all parties would be present. No written request for further instructions was received. In our limited remand we noted that appellants apparently did not dispute the court’s statement that there was no communication by the court, but appeared to assert that a bailiff or marshal made the alleged unauthorized communication.
At the remand hearing the district court offered to call the jury foreman, Canfield, but the parties stipulated that a television interview would cover Canfield’s statement,4 which in substance was that on Wednesday afternoon the jury was at an impasse and sent a note to the court accordingly. The response it received was to take the night off, which it did. The testimony of the two marshals was to the effect that if the jury wanted further instructions from the court it should communicate with the court in the morning. The district court found on the basis of the record on remand there was no merit to the claim of unauthorized communication. See 455 F.Supp. at 527-28. The record supports this finding.
Finally in claim 9 appellants contend the district court’s refusal to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing to explore allegations of unauthorized jury experiments, improper jury communications, and the prejudicial impact resulting from the jury’s experience of being trapped in an inoperable elevator for one and one-half hours on the last day of deliberations, deprived appellants of due process of law. The matter of unauthorized jury experiments has already been discussed under claim 7, and the matter of improper jury communications was explored in our limited remand hearing, and discussed under claim 8. The claim for a new trial based on the fact that the jury was stuck in an elevator at the Radisson Hotel for an hour and a half is much ado about nothing. The trial court properly dismissed this contention as being without merit. 442 F.Supp. 1226.
After considering the record as a whole I am satisfied the appellants received a fair trial and the evidence amply supports the jury’s finding of guilt. I would affirm.

. The discussion under “Statement of Abortive Witness Burt” is included because it summarizes the general nature of the proffered testimony and the trial court’s view that the probative value of the proposed testimony by Witness Burt (Ms. Billstrom) was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues, unfair prejudice and misleading the jury. See Fed.R.Evid. 403.

. The inquiry and answer were as follows:
THE COURT: Mr. Redpath, when were you asked to make service?
MARSHAL REDPATH: I believe it was Tuesday morning this investigator asked me if I couldn’t make this service. I asked him when it was returnable. He said, “I don’t know. I will get back to you.” I said, “Right now I don’t have any deputies available.” At that time, Your Honor, we had the lockup full of prisoners out of Stillwater, and I had all the deputies available guarding them.
He never did get back or never got back with me until Friday morning when the matter was brought up before Your Honor, and I saw him at about 9:30. He said, “Well, I don’t have the subpoena, it’s coming.” And at 12:30 I received the subpoena from Mr. Seibel.
THE COURT: That’s last Friday?
MARSHAL REDPATH: Last Friday.
THE COURT: Then you or some other deputy—
MARSHAL REDPATH: I had a free deputy. He went down and effected service around 3:30 Friday afternoon.

. Our remand also included clarification of the record with respect to appellants’ claim of improper communication by the marshal with the jury-

. Counsel indicated they desired to call all jurors but made no adequate showing as to why this was necessary.