353 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1965), 19459, D'Argento v. United States
|Citation:||353 F.2d 327|
|Party Name:||Joseph N. D'ARGENTO and James A. Caparusso, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||November 04, 1965|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellants.
Manual L. Real, U.S. Atty., John K. Van De Kamp, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Sec., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Sec., Robt. H. Filsinger, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
POWELL, District Judge.
Joseph N. D'Argento appeals from his convictions and three concurrent five year sentences. He and James A. Caparusso were charged in a four count indictment on March 25, 1964, with violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy), and 18 U.S.C. 659 (Theft from interstate shipment and possession of stolen goods). Defendants were found guilty on the three counts by the jury on April 17, 1964. The fourth count was dismissed.
Since the trial James A. Caparusso had died. His appeal is subject to dismissal as the prosecution abates on the death of the defendant. Daniel v. United States, 268 F.2d 849 (5 Cir. 1959); Crooker v. United States, 325 F.2d 318 (8 Cir. 1963). The evidence will be discussed here as though the appeal was by both convicted defendants.
On this appeal error is claimed by appellant as follows:
1. That the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of guilty on any of the three counts as there was no evidence that the goods were removed from Interstate Commerce, that there was no evidence of knowledge or intent and no evidence of agreement.
2. That prejudicial and inadmissible evidence was received over objection and consisted of:
(a) Evidence of the arrest and 'flight' of the defendant D'Argento in Chicago, (b) Evidence of statement of D'Argento of ownership of an automobile on May 1, 1963, and (c) Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment rights consisting of (1) license plates seized in Chicago, and (2) the statements of D'Argento of May 1, 1963 which were the result of an unlawful arrest.
3. That defendants were denied an opportunity to present evidence that the evidence admitted at the trial was unlawfully
seized, (1) as to the search warrant in Chicago, and (2) the arrest in Beverly Hills on May 1, 1963.
4. That the indictment was defective in alleging the theft and possession of the same goods and the Government should have been required to elect on which they were proceeding, and the court erred in failing to instruct the jury they could not find defendant guilty of both.
5. The cumulative effect of the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence and the failure of the trial court to exclude the witnesses at the time of trial was such as to deny appellant due process.
At the commencement of the trial the parties entered into a written stipulation about the ownership and description of the property involved in this case. It is summarized as follows:
Twenty-seven fur pieces were shipped from New York, N.Y. by Samuel Feldstein to himself, in care of Dicker & Dicker, Beverly Hills, California. They were in two sample cases bearing Railway Express Agency (REA) waybill Nos. 790557 and 790558, and a cardboard carton bearing REA waybill No. 790559. They arrived at the REA Air Express Terminal Office at Los Angeles International Airport on November 17, 1963. The stipulation listed the style and identification numbers of the twenty-seven fur pieces.
Two additional fur pieces were shipped from New York, N.Y., by Oliver Gintel to Duffy Edwards, 201 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California, in a carton bearing waybill No. 469586, which arrived at the REA Air Express Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport on November 17, 1963.
The stipulation stated the total retail and wholesale value of the furs and provided that the twenty-nine fur pieces were photographed on November 19, 1963, resulting in twenty-nine photographs, which are marked Government's Exhibit 3, and that the photographs were fair and accurate representations of each fur piece, contained in the shipment. The stipulation was read to the jury at the trial.
Government witness Wilbur Moore testified that he had been an employee of REA for about 21 years and worked at the Los Angeles International Airport on November 18, 1963, from midnight to 8 a.m. When shipments which were marked 'valuable' arrived he was required to list each waybill number separately on a sheet. The valuable items were placed in a cage for security. Mr. Moore knew that the items involved in this case were valuable because there was a red ball sticker on the waybills.
Mr. Moore testified that he received all of the cases and the cartons listed in the stipulation. He entered the numbers on a registration sheet when he received the goods. The destination and stated value were also entered. Mr. Moore stated the two cases and two cartons were stacked outside the security cage when they were received as they were too large to go in the cage, which was already rather well filled.
Mr. Moore did not see anyone remove the cartons, although he admitted there were a lot of items left outside the cage. He remembers the two cases and four or five large cartons because they were too large to go in the cage. He turned the other valuable items over to his relief when he went off work at 8 a.m. The waybills containing the red ball stickers were attached to the cases. Mr. Moore did not see either of the defendants at any time in the vicinity of the air terminal.
Vincent Masser, an employee of REA on November 18, 1963, was at the Los Angeles International Airport. His duty was to care for valuable cargo. He worked from 12 o'clock midnight to 8:30 in the morning. When he arrived the security cage was filled and there were packages on the outside of the cage. These consisted of two sample cases, plus other boxes. He inspected the packages outside the cage when he came to work and checked the waybill numbers with these packages. He located the sample cases bearing the numbers listed in the
stipulation. At 1 o'clock he stacked the items and put a clip board on top of them. He stacked them because they were all bound for certain destinations and to be picked up later by a driver. He testified the doorway was large enough for a truck to enter. The doorway was always open and there was a fence that separated the doorway from the parking area, but the fence was in such a state of disrepair that anyone could walk over the fence. On November 18, 1963, Mr. Masser observed a car with two people in it in the parking area about 10 feet from the fence. He saw the car after midnight...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP