U.S. v. Wilson, 79-1528
| Decision Date | 06 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1528,79-1528 |
| Citation | 614 F.2d 1224 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaye WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Dan Rodger Dubitzky, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Christine McKenna, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before DUNIWAY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
Jaye Wilson was convicted on two counts of acquiring controlled substances by means of forged order forms in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3). 1 Wilson had been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. In lieu of appearing before the grand jury she chose to be interviewed by an Assistant United States Attorney and during the interview confessed. She was subsequently indicted and moved to suppress her statements in the interview and to dismiss the indictment. Her motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial before the court without a jury. Upon conviction she was given a suspended sentence and placed on probation for three years. We affirm.
In February, 1979, Dr. Rex B. Palmer, a physician and surgeon who employed Wilson as a registered nurse, informed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Agent Flett that orders for narcotics bearing Palmer's forged signature had been submitted to a local pharmacy and that a section of his order form book was missing. Flett in turn gave this information to Assistant United States Attorney Francis Diskin.
On March 1, 1979, Diskin had a subpoena prepared requiring Wilson to appear before the grand jury at 11:00 A.M. on March 13, 1979. Diskin did not give the subpoena to the United States Marshal for routine service, but instead gave it to Agent Flett with instructions to delay service until directed by Diskin.
On March 12, 1979, Diskin directed Agent Flett to serve the subpoena the following morning at Dr. Palmer's officer. Flett and a county officer arrived at Palmer's office about 9:00 A.M., March 13. They served Wilson at about 10:30 A.M. when she arrived at work. She became emotionally upset when served with the subpoena. She asked permission to speak to Dr. Palmer.
After speaking with Dr. Palmer, Wilson asked Agent Flett how she could avoid an appearance before the grand jury. The agent replied that he could not make that decision and that she would have to speak to the United States Attorney in charge of the case. At Wilson's request the agents escorted her to the courthouse, a few blocks from Dr. Palmer's office. En route Flett explained that she did not have to speak to the agents and that she had a right to counsel except when appearing before the grand jury. Wilson indicated that she would like to talk to Diskin.
The agents escorted Wilson to Diskin's office. Diskin told her that the subpoena did not require her appearance in his office, but only required her to appear before the grand jury. Wilson received and waived her Miranda rights. During the subsequent hour long interview, she admitted that she had forged Palmer's signature on the narcotics orders, that she was addicted to drugs, and that she had dispensed drugs to her boy friend and friends.
Following her indictment on April 10, 1979, Wilson moved to suppress the statements made in the March 13 interview on the grounds that (1) the service of the subpoena on the same morning that she was to appear before the grand jury was an abuse of discretion requiring exercise of the court's supervisory control; (2) the subpoena improperly commanded an appearance before the United States Attorney, not the grand jury; and (3) her statements were not made voluntarily, but stemmed from fear.
Diskin, testifying for the Government at the suppression hearing, explained that he had delayed service of the subpoena until March 13 because he expected Wilson would again attempt to forge Dr. Palmer's signature and thus would provide him with additional evidence. He explained further that subpoenas routinely direct grand jury witnesses to report to the floor of the federal courthouse where the United States Attorney's office is located to allow the witnesses to obtain vouchers for witness fees, and that he directed Agent Flett to serve the subpoena at Wilson's place of business rather than her home only because Dr. Palmer's office was located close to the courthouse. Diskin admitted there was no risk that Wilson would flee or destroy evidence.
The district court found that the primary reason for not serving the subpoena earlier was to acquire additional evidence and that this was reasonable under the circumstances of the case; that the direction in the subpoena to report at the United States Attorney's office was for accounting purposes only; that Wilson fully understood that she was required only to appear before the grand jury, but instead chose voluntarily to appear before the Assistant United States Attorney; and that she was fully advised of her Miranda rights.
Appellant contends that (1) where, as here, "there is no evidence that a witness subpoenaed on a forthwith basis will either flee or destroy evidence, it is unreasonable per se to issue a forthwith subpoena"; and (2) this court "should, in its supervisory capacity, suppress the defendant's statement" made as a direct result thereof. She does not contend, however, that her confession was involuntary or given in violation of Miranda rights. 2
Wilson contends that a "forthwith subpoena" is tantamount to an arrest and that "certain restrictions" must therefore be placed upon the United States Attorney's power to cause a subpoena of this nature to be issued. She cites the United States Attorney's Manual, Limitations on the Grand Jury Subpoenas, § 9-11, 230 which recommends:
All grand jury witnesses should be accorded reasonable advance notice of their appearance before the grand jury. "(F)orthwith" . . . subpoenas should be used only when swift action is important . . . Considerations, among others, which bear upon the desirability of using such subpoenas include . . . (1) the risk of flight; (2) the risk of destruction or fabrication of evidence; (3) the need for the orderly presentation of evidence; and (4) the degree of inconvenience to the witness.
Recognizing that these provisions do not carry the force of law, Wilson argues that "they are instructive as to what standard the court should apply in the application of its supervisory power."
Supervisory control of grand jury procedures is narrowly construed in this circuit. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Hergenroeder, 555 F.2d 686 (9 Cir. 1977). As the court said in United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9 Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977):
(G)iven the constitutionally-based independence of each of the three actors court, prosecutor and grand jury we believe a court may not exercise its "supervisory power" in a way which encroaches on the prerogatives of the other two unless there is a clear basis in fact and law for doing so. If the district courts were not required to meet such a standard, their "supervisory power" could readily prove subversive of the doctrine of separation of powers.
(footnotes omitted); accord, United States v. Hall, 559 F.2d 1160, 1164 (9 Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942, 98 S.Ct. 1523, 55 L.Ed.2d 539 (1978). The legal basis for a court's assertion of its supervisory power "is the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and to avoid any fundamental unfairness". Chanen, supra at 1313; accord United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9 Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909, 99 S.Ct. 2822, 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979). As in Chanen, "it is far from clear" that the manner in which the grand jury subpoena was served "implicates any of those interests".
First, there is no clear basis in law for exercising "supervisory power". Although we recognize the propriety of the guidelines in the United States Attorney's Manual, supra, these guidelines, as the district court and both parties recognize, do not have the force of law. 3 A court is not required to enforce an agency...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Claiborne
...to dismiss indictments based on challenges involving a federal agency's failure to adhere to its own guidelines. United States v. Wilson, 614 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Welch, 572 F.2d 1359, 1360 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam); cert. denied, 439 U.S. 842, 99 S.Ct. 133, 58......
-
U.S. v. Armstrong, s. 84-1255
...basis in fact and law for doing so. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Hugle, 754 F.2d 863, 864 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Wilson, 614 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir.1980); Chanen, 549 F.2d at 1313. Frequent or unnecessary court intervention in grand jury proceedings would impede the grand j......
-
United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., Criminal No. 3:00CR217(EBB) (D. Conn. 11/4/2002)
...used any coercion, compulsion or aggressive tactics when the subpoena was served on Triumph's counsel. Accord, United States v. Wilson, 614 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1980) (upholding use of forthwith subpoena in the absence of evidence of abuse of process or that it was used as a ploy to facilita......
-
U.S. v. Gonsalves
...it claims support its argument that the District Court's exercise of supervisory power in this case was improper: United States v. Wilson, 614 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir.1980), United States v. Welch, 572 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 842, 99 S.Ct. 133, 58 L.Ed.2d 140 (1978); United ......
-
Limiting prosecutorial discretion under the Oregon Environmental Crimes Act: a new solution to an old problem.
...CONST. art. VII, [sections] 5, cl. 5. (58.)Telephone Interview with John Bradley, supra note 24. (59.)See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 614 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1980) (court not required to enforce agency regulations unless mandated by statute or the (60.)OR. CONST. art. VII, [sections] 5,......