523 F.2d 86 (2nd Cir. 1975), 978, United States v. Foddrell

Docket Nº:978, Docket 75-1048.
Citation:523 F.2d 86
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl FODDRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:July 28, 1975
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 86

523 F.2d 86 (2nd Cir. 1975)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


Earl FODDRELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 978, Docket 75-1048.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

July 28, 1975

Argued May 2, 1975.

Page 87

Robert P. Leighton, New York City, for defendant-appellant Foddrell.

Thomas E. Engel, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Paul J. Curran, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, Lawrence S. Feld, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MOORE and MANSFIELD, Circuit Judges, and HOLDEN, District Judge. [*]


This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered on January 30, 1975, following a jury trial in which the defendant was found guilty of possessing heroin, with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a) (1) and 841(b)(1)(A) 1970. 1

The appellant raises five issues on appeal. Our review of the record convinces us that the District Court properly refused to recuse itself on the ground that the trial judge had conducted an eleven day hearing on wire tapping and had read a presentence report before sentencing the defendant on July 31, 1973, after the appellant had pleaded guilty in the prior case. 2

The trial court properly denied the motion for a hearing on the legality of the wire taps conducted in the earlier prosecution. In response to the motion, the Government represented to the court that no material obtained from surveillance of the telephone calls in the prior case led to any information concerning the present indictment. Judge Gagliardi was entirely justified in accepting the representations made by the Assistant United States Attorney on the point. Although the appellant had access to the transcript of the eleven day hearing in the prior case, he has produced nothing to suggest that the court's reliance on the Government's representation was misplaced, or that the prosecutor's assurance was untrue in any respect.

The appellant had failed to demonstrate prejudice or an abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for severance. Moreover, the claim of prejudice advanced on appeal was not raised in its present context at the trial.

The same holds true of the appellant's claim of error in the Government's summation. No objection was voiced at the time the argument was made and there was no request for curative instruction. No...

To continue reading