Court Opinion

ID: 9447235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:29:37.988915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:57.379027
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Appellant’s defense at trial was that the Government’s special employee and informer, one Miller, with whom appellant was acquainted, had placed the marihuana in appellant’s closet without appellant’s knowledge. Essentially, this amounts to a charge that appellant was framed.1 The defense was corroborated in essential details by Richards’ wife and two others. Miller, who was in a critical position to affirm or deny appellant’s charge or otherwise to elucidate the matter in issue was absent from the trial.2 *659Thus the instruction on the evidentiary significance of a missing witness was of crucial importance. The instruction given, in its entirety, was this:
“There is still another rule of law that, if either party of [sic] the Government or the defense has it peculiarly within his power to produce a witness whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony adduced would be unfavorable.
“However, there is no such presumption where the Government or defense fails to put on a stand a witness not deemed necessary to its case who might conceivably have given testimony favorable to that particular side.”
Appellant’s counsel in this appeal, who was not trial counsel, concedes that the first paragraph is a correct statement of the missing witness rule as laid down by the Supreme Court in Graves v. United States, 1893, 150 U.S. 118, 14 S.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021. And he finds no fault with the second paragraph, standing alone, which was apparently intended to reflect the prevailing rule that no adverse presumption arises from a party’s failure to call a witness whose testimony would be merely cumulative or redundant.3 See 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1907 (3d ed. 1940). His objection is that, taken together, the two parts of the instruction are confusing, misleading and prejudicial. But appellant’s trial counsel did not object to the instruction as given. The one he requested was no more explicit or helpful.4 Moreover, it was erroneous.5
The question, therefore, is whether the instruction bearing on appellant’s primary defense was so obscure and misleading that it affected “substantial rights” within the meaning of the plain error rule. Rule 52(b), Fod.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C.A. I conclude that it did.6
*660While I agree that the second paragraph tended to negate the first paragraph’s clear statement of the Graves rule, I do not think this defect constitutes “plain error” requiring reversal. I find such error, however, when this inadequacy is added to another, and more serious, defect in the instructions. This defect stems from the trial court’s failure to adequately explain to the jury when the Graves rule may be invoked, or, more specifically, under what conditions a party “has it peculiarly within his power to produce a witness.” [150 U.S. 118, 14 S.Ct. 41]
The need for such clarification is plainly apparent from the fact that the meaning of this phrase is the subject of disagreement, not only between counsel in this case, but also between my brethren and me, and between several of the Federal courts. Government counsel, my brethren, and at least one circuit court hold that “peculiarly within his power” means mere “physical availability” alone. That is, if a witness is physically available to both sides for the purpose of serving a subpoena upon him, he is not peculiarly available to either side, and no adverse presumption can be inferred. On the other hand, counsel for appellant, a majority of the Federal courts (which, in my judgment, includes this one), numerous commentators and I think that “peculiarly available” means more than mere physical availability. Under the latter view, even if one side could obtain service of a subpoena upon a witness, he may still be said to be “peculiarly available” to the other side where there is a likelihood of bias on the part of the witness in favor of the other side, or where, as here, there is a special relationship between the witness and the other side, such as kinship or employment.
My brethren find support for their view in Shurman v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 272. There the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a “special employee” of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics who was known to the defendant and witnessed three illegal sales transactions was equally available to both sides. That case may be distinguishable in that the witness disappeared before trial and could not be found despite the Government’s strenuous efforts to locate him. In any event it appears to be an aberrant case since another division of the same court reached the opposite conclusion two months earlier in McClanahan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 919.7 There, in holding that defendant’s failure to call his own attorney to elucidate a transaction under suspicion justified an unfavorable inference, the court approved the following summary of the law:
“Availability of a witness is not to be determined from his mere physical presence at the trial or his accessibility for the service of a subpoena upon him. On the contrary, his availability may well depend, among other things, upon his relationship to one or the other of the parties and the nature of the testimony that he might be expected to give * * *. Deaver v. St. Louis Service Co., Mo. App., 199 S.W.2d 83, 85.”
And the Third Circuit, citing MeClanahan with approval, recently held that a special employee of the Narcotics Bureau was not equally available to the defendant even though he was sitting in the courtroom for part of the trial. The court rejected the physical availability test, saying that “certainly he was not the kind of witness that the defendant could be expected to call.” United States v. Jackson, 3 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 41, 43, 44. For examples of other circuits rejecting the physical availability test, see United States v. Beekman, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 580; Samish v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 233 F.2d 358, 365.
Finally, there is authority in this circuit that a witness can be “peculiarly *661available” to one side within the meaning of the Graves rule even though he is physically available to both parties. In Billeci v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S. App.D.C. 274, 279, 184 F.2d 394, 399, 24 A.L.R.2d 881, we held that no unfavorable inference could be drawn against the defendant for failure to call certain witnesses since there was no showing that the witnesses in question were “peculiarly available” to him. We pointed out that “at least one of the potential witnesses * * * was a police officer, and certainly it could not be inferred that he was more readily available to the appellants than to the prosecutor.” This view is consistent with our statement in Milton v. United States, 1940, 71 App.D.C. 394, 397, 110 F.2d 556, 559, where the prosecutor commented upon defendant’s failure to call his employer:
“ * * * the woman stood in close relation to appellant Quantrille, within the meaning of our decision in the Egan case; she was presumably known and available to appellants; her unexplained absence suggests that appellants had good reason for not calling her; and this was properly argued against them.”
In Egan v. United States, 1923, 52 App.D.C. 384, 396, 287 F. 958, 970, we held that the trial judge’s instructions were improper, since no Graves inference “may be drawn by a jury because a party fails to call as a witness one who is in a legal sense a stranger to him and is equally available to the other side.” By necessary implication, it seems to me, the party that fails to call a witness who is “legally related” (e. g., employer-employee) must bear the consequences of an adverse inference.
Since lawyers and courts cannot agree upon the meaning of critical words of the Graves rule, certainly the jury cannot be expected to know what they mean.8 The failure of the trial court to explain them in the context of this case may well have affected the verdict.9 Accordingly I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

. In the trial transcript which appears in this record, appellant’s trial counsel did not so characterize the defense. But this transcript does not include his closing argument to the jury, where such a statement would most likely be made. For a discussion of the role of the police informer in narcotics cases, see my statement in Jones v. United States, 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 266 F.2d 924.

. Appellant was originally indicted on two counts, one for possessing marihuana on September 2, 1958, in violation of 26 U.S.O. § 4744(a) (1958), and the other for possession on August 31, 1958. Tbe Government dismissed this indictment and thereafter obtained the present one count indictment for possession on September 2. The charge dropped involved an alleged sale by appellant to Miller and would therefore have required Miller’s testimony. If the Government dropped that charge because of an unwillingness to call Miller, this would help to explain the Government’s failure to call Miller in the present case despite the fact that he was under Government subpoena at the time of the trial.

. It is difficult, however, to see why an instruction on this point was needed since that issue was not in the case. Not even the Government contends that Miller’s testimony would be repetitive or cumulative.

. Appellant’s counsel requested the following:
“The jury is instructed, as a matter of law that any witness material to tlie ease and who is available to be called by either side or party in this case, and such witness is not called to testify, then the jury may infer that the failure to call such witness is indicitive [sic] that his testimony would have been unfavorable to the side or party failing to call such witness.”

. Appellant’s requested instruction was less favorable than he was entitled to, for it did not rest upon the peculiar availability of the witness to one side or the other, but would have authorized the jury to draw an adverse inference against either or both parties, depending upon the jury’s appraisal of all the circumstances. This approach is favored by Professor Wigmore, 3 Evidence § 288 (3d ed. 1940), and Professor McCormack, Evidence 534 (1954), and has been adopted by the Second and Third Circuits. United States v. Beckman, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 580; United States v. Jackson, 3 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 41.

. What constitutes “plain error” depends upon the circumstances of tlie case. See Stewart v. United States, 1957, 101 U.S. App.D.C. 51, 56, 247 F.2d 42, 48. Incomplete or misleading instructions have often been held to constitute plain error. See, e. g., Williams v. United States, 1942, 70 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 131 F.2d 21 (incomplete instructions); Tatum v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 190 F.2d 612 (same); United States v. Raub, 7 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 312 (same) ; Stewart v. United States, 1954, 94 U.S.App. D.C. 293, 214 F.2d 879 (misleading).
In Bollenbach v. United States, 1945, 326 U.S. 607, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction resting upon an erroneous supplemental instruction, saying, “A conviction ought not to rest on an equivocal direction to the jury on a basic issue.” Id., 326 U.S. at page 613, 66 S.Ct. at page 405. “Discharge of the jury’s responsibility for drawing appropriate conclusions from the testimony depended on discharge of the judge’s responsibility to give the jury the required guidance by a lucid statement of the relevant legal criteria.” Id., 326 U.S. at page 612, 66 S.Ct. at page 405.

. Although the author of the Shurman opinion and another judge on the panel previously sat in McClanahan, that case was not cited and no attempt was made to distinguish it.

. “Legal presumptions involve subtle conceptions to which not even judges always bring clear understanding.” Bollenbach v. United States, 1945, 326 U.S. 607, 614. 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350.

. I do not reach the question whether the trial judge should have told the jury that, as a matter of law, Miller was peculiarly available to the Government, or whether he should have explained the meaning of that term and allowed the jury to decide if, on the facts, he was peculiarly available to the Government. As far as I am aware, that question has not been decided in this circuit.