Court Opinion

ID: 9450203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:38:18.768314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:11.574068
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
While I join in the affirmance of both-convictions, my reasons for so doing in-Augustine’s case differ markedly from-, those advanced in the opinion of Judge-Dimock. Simply stated, I believe that, the jury might properly have concluded: that the “package” which Augustine-. *891was seen to pass to Angelo outside of ■the building was identical to the “envelope” of narcotics which Angelo sold inside, and I would, therefore, affirm Augustine’s conviction. In light of the •evidence, the instructions of the Court, ■and the arguments of counsel, however, I do not believe that the jury could have •convicted Augustine on the theory propounded for the first time in my brother Dimock’s opinion on this appeal — that the “envelope” sold by Angelo might have been extracted from the “package” passed by Augustine.
After examining the record, I find no •evidence whatsoever that more than one “envelope” or “package” existed, or that the former may have been taken from the latter. Indeed, the government’s entire case against Augustine was premised •on the notion that the “package” and the “envelope” were identical; accordingly, considerable emphasis was placed •on testimony indicating that the container of narcotics was placed into, and taken •out of the same pocket — Angelo’s right-hand trouser pocket. More significantly, the Court’s instructions repeatedly suggested that Augustine’s guilt turned on whether the “package” and the “envelope” were found to be one and the same. Thus, in the very passage from the •charge cited in Judge Dimoek’s opinion, ■Judge Palmieri stated that the government had not directly proved that Augustine had passed a “glassine envelope,” but ■that the jury might properly infer this to be true; in context, this can only be taken as referring to the “glassine envelope” which Angelo sold to the federal •agent. And if there might have been any •doubt as to the Court’s meaning at this time, it was promptly clarified by the ■portion of the supplemental charge which also appears in Judge Dimock’s ■opinion. Thus, the jury was there informed that it might convict Augustine “if you believe that a small white package was taken out of [Angelo’s] right trouser pocket and that that package which was taken out was the package (that she gave her husband.”
I thus find no warrant for sustaining the verdict on a wholly conjectural theory which seems so basically at variance with the evidence, arguments, and instructions at the trial. But my unwillingness to accept this sort of speculation —advanced by neither party, here or below — does not compel me to join my brother Waterman in voting for reversal. For, as I have indicated, I believe that we may not properly disturb the jury’s conclusion as to the one issue which was presented for its consideration and which provides the only support for Augustine’s conviction — the question whether the “package” passed was, in fact, the “envelope” sold.
This particular question, indeed, heatedly debated by counsel and properly spotlighted by the Court as it was, seems to me precisely the sort of issue of fact which juries are intended to determine. It is axiomatic, and rightfully so, that appellate courts may not replace the jury’s view of the evidence with their own. See United States v. Dardi, 330 F.2d 316 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Tutino, 269 F.2d 488 (2d Cir. 1959). In the present case, the jury, unlike this Court, heard all of the testimony and saw all of the exhibits — including that much-discussed envelope; it was also correctly instructed as to the applicable law. Under these circumstances, I see no justification in rejecting the jury’s conclusion.
I might add that the approximations of size proffered as to both the “package” and the “envelope” were but rough guesses, and, with respect to the “package,” recollections of an event long in the past. Further, the agents who observed Augustine pass the “package” to her husband were stationed at a substantial distance from the transaction, and were viewing the scene through the magnification of binoculars; it would, therefore, not be surprising if their computations were somewhat less than precise, especially since there was testimony that they observed only a portion of the “package” being passed. Finally, when she took *892the stand, Augustine denied even being present at the time the alleged transaction took place; it seems clear that this denial, disproved by the testimony of three government agents, might quite properly have been considered by the jury as evidencing consciousness of guilt.
Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government— which we must at this juncture of the case — and recognizing that possession of narcotics may be proved by circumstantial evidence, United States v. Gregory, 309 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1962), I am unwilling to say that a reasonable jury could not have found from the evidence that the “package” which Augustine passed was the “envelope” of narcotics which Angelo sold. We should avoid arrogating to ourselves the role of super-jurors, and attempt to refine facts on issues fully tried out before a jury; we usurp the function of the jury itself when we meddle in this area. If we were to reverse Augustine’s conviction in the present case, our decision would be tantamount to a holding that, as a matter of law, the government had not made out a case sufficient even to go to a jury. And if such a ruling were warranted here, it would seem to follow that unless the testimony of all government witnesses in criminal cases precisely dovetails and is perfectly consistent, the lower court commits reversible error by submitting such a case to a jury. I know of no law or precedent for this curious doctrine.1
Nor can I accept the proposition, implicit throughout my brother Waterman’s dissenting opinion, that the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed upon Augustine by the narcotics statutes in any way increases our power to readjudicate the facts already determined by the jury. In Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s words for the Supreme Court in Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 614, 66 S.Ct. 402, 406, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946), “it may not be amiss to remind that the question is not whether guilt may be spelt out of a record, but whether guilt has been found by a jury according to the procedure and standards appropriate for criminal trials in the federal courts.” That the penalty imposed by the legislature may be severe hardly alters the nature of our task in this regard, nor may it transform the question before us.
Finally, I cannot accept Judge Waterman’s suggestion that Augustine’s conviction must be reversed because Judge Dimock and I would affirm on different legal theories. If such a principle were law, numerous affirmances or reversals, in the Supreme Court and other appellate courts, should properly be vacated. See, e. g., Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961); James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961); National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 69 S.Ct. 1173, 93 L.Ed. 1556 (1949); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Gray Manufacturing Co., 328 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1964). Cf. Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245, 58 S.Ct. 154, 82 L.Ed. 224 (1937); Lum Wan v. Esperdy, 321 F.2d 123, 125-26 (2d Cir. 1963). Whatever our differences, Judge Dimock and I agree upon the crucial question outlined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter — that “guilt has been found by a jury according to the procedure and standards appropriate for criminal trials in the federal courts.” Since we agree that the jury’s verdict should stand, it would seem immaterial *893that we reached our common destination by different routes.
I would affirm for the reasons stated in this opinion.

. In view of the inevitable fallibility of human perception, I, for one, would be somewhat suspicious of testimony that was perfectly consistent; such a remarkable degree of coincidence would seem to smack more of coaching and rehearsal than of accuracy and truth. In the present case, indeed, the slight discrepancies in the testimony of the various agents may well have contributed to the jury’s conclusion that it was being told the truth, rather than an artfully contrived story.