Court Opinion

ID: 9651589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:28:03.09885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:36.424205
License: Public Domain

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I regret that I am unable to agree to the opinion of the court. It seems to me that, in the interest of justice and fair -trial, the judgment and verdict should not be sustained, for the reason, if for no other, that incompetent and highly prejudicial testimony was introduced by the government' and. allowed to be considered by the jury. This testimony bore upon the charges made in both indictments.
In the first indictment the defendant was charged with having aided and abetted the Barron Furniture Company, a bankrupt corporation of which he was president, in concealing a large amount of its assets from the trustee, and in the second indictment with having made a false oath to the schedules of the bankrupt’s assets.
It appeared in evidence that a very substantial amount of furniture belonging to the Barron Furniture Company had been taken, prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy against it, to Wareham, and stored in a. cottage there. These are the goods which it is alleged in the first indictment the defendant aided the Barron Furniture Company in concealing, and are the same goods that it is alleged in the second indictment were omitted from the schedules of the assets of the Barron Furniture Company, to which the defendant made oath.
One Wardwell, a witness for the government, and who had been in the employ of the Barron Furniture Company, testified that on two occasions in December, 1922, about Christmas time, he and one Nye, by the defendant’s direction, took the furniture in question from the store of the Barron Furniture Company at Brockton to Wareham, where they stored it in a cottage; that they entered the cottage by means of a key which Nye had, and with which the witness opened the door. During the direct examination of this witness, and at the end thereof, the United States attorney asked this question: “To *806.whom did you first tell this story of furniture?” (meaning the story about taking the furniture to the cottage at defendant’s direction) , and was allowed to hive it answered, subject to the defendant’s exception. The answer was, “Mr. Warren,” who later testified as a witness for the government. It further appeared that on February 18, 1923, in the nighttime,' Wardwell went with a truck to the cottage, entered it, and removed a substantial part of the furniture stored there; that on his way back to Brockton he was intercepted at Bridgewater by the police, and thereafter arrested and indicted for breaking and entering. In the cross-exam-inatidn of Wardwell and other government witnesses, it was plainly intimated that Wardwell or Nye or both had taken the furniture in question, either from the store of the Barron Furniture Company, or from a truck they drove while in the employ of the company, and removed it to the cottage, and that on the night of February 18th Ward-well was removing it from the cottage to some other place.
The charge of the court to the jury is included in the bill of exceptions. In it the court told the jury that it did not seem to him there was “any doubt that a very substantial amount of goods were taken out of the store of the Barron Furniture Company and moved down to Wareham, Mass., and stored in this cottage on Sea street. Just when that was done is a matter which depends on the evidence of Wardwell, hut he says it was done during December, and before apparently the bankruptcy petition against the company was filed. The ease really turns, both cases, as I think you will find, on whether you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that these goods were moved down there with Barron’s knowledge and assent, and as part of the scheme in which Barron was engaged. * * * The real crux of the matter is, Are you satisfied that Barron was concerned in that spiriting away and concealment of the goods ? * * * ”
“So, I think you will find that both indictments turn around one question, Are you satisfied that Barron knew about this movement of goods to Wareham, in December, and that he was a party to it, and that his purpose was to defraud the creditors of the Barron Furniture Company?
“Much depends on Wardwell’s story, and Wardwell is a witness whose testimony a lawyer would, say does not carry much weight. He is a self-confessed criminal. * * * ”
“Two things are possible, either that Wardwell’s story is true, and that Barron was preparing against a fraudulent bankruptcy, which is the government’s charge here, or that Wardwell and Nye were stealing the goods on their own account.
“Wardwell, of course, says that the first is the fact. We may readily believe that Ward-well would not be above the second. *' * * ”
In the bill of exceptions, which was duly approved by the District Judge, and following the setting forth of the matters relied upon by the defendant as errors occurring during the course of the trial, appears the following:
“The foregoing is'a statement of all the’ evidence in the ease material to a determination of any exception saved or ruling requested.”
Now it is apparent from the foregoing that Wardwell was a self-confessed criminal; that the government’s case, so far as there was evidence implicating the defendant, depended almost wholly upon the testimony of Wardwell; that, if the jury disbelieved his testimony, its case would fall; and that it was very material to the government that his testimony should be believed. As an aid in this direction he was allowed to testify that he first told Warren this story about. the furniture having been taken to the cottage at the defendant’s direction. This was a plain attempt to bolster up the credibility of the witness. It was pure narration of a past occurrence, and was clearly inadmissible. It was not only inadmissible, but was highly prejudicial.
The bill of exceptions clearly sets forth the situation under which the evidence was admitted, and, to render the matter doubly certain that we have before us all the evidence essential to a proper consideration of the question, it contains the statement above quoted, that the record embraces “all the evidence in the case material to the determination of any exception saved or ruling requested.”
The court in its opinion seeks to carry the idea that “it does not appear when this statement was made by him (Wardwell), nor how soon after the goods were taken to the cottage at Wareham”; that, “if he disclosed what he had done soon after he had taken the goods to Wareham,” they could not say that “it would not have tended to show that he had not stolen them.” But the burden was on the government to make it appear that the testimony in question, which it was offering, was competent. This it failed to do. There was no claim by the government that the statement of Wardwell was made under circumstances that would render it *807admissible as a part of the res geste, and there is no evidence showing that it was made at the time he removed the furniture to the cottage, or was so closely related in time that his statement could be found to be a part of the res gestee, and not mere narration of a past event. There can be no question but that, under the circumstances presented in this case, the testimony was material and highly prejudicial. It was of the essence of the government’s case that Ward-well be believed; he was a self-confessed criminal; and to carry conviction that his testimony as to removing the furniture at the defendant’s direction was true, the government was permitted to show that, after the removal of the furniture, he first told Warren that he removed it at the defendant’s direction.