679 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir. 1982), 81-1966, United States v. Piatt

Docket Nº81-1966.
Citation679 F.2d 1228
Party NameUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Thomas PIATT, Appellant.
Case DateJune 04, 1982
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 1228

679 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir. 1982)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Robert Thomas PIATT, Appellant.

No. 81-1966.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

June 4, 1982

Submitted Feb. 12, 1982.

Page 1229

Martin, Bahn & Cervantes, Mark R. Bahn, St. Louis, Mo., for Robert piatt.

Thomas E. Dittmeier, U. S. Atty., Robert T. Haar, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, and STEPHENSON and GIBSON, [*] Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Robert Thomas Piatt appeals his conviction on three counts arising out of the transportation and distribution of approximately two hundred pounds of marijuana. This appeal raises issues of whether the district court 1 abused its discretion by rereading some but not all of the jury instructions in response to the jury's questions, whether out-of-court statements by coconspirators were admissible against Piatt, whether the district court properly denied Piatt's motion for severance, and whether the government was obliged to disclose the

Page 1230

identity of witness Roberds before trial. Finding no error in any of these respects, we affirm.

In April 1981, Piatt approached Michael West in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and offered West $1,000 if West would help Piatt drive to St. Louis, Missouri in West's Pontiac Grand Prix. Before departing for Missouri, Piatt borrowed West's car twice. After he returned the second time, the two left Florida with something loaded in the back seat covered with a sheet. They arrived in St. Louis and checked into the Holiday Inn West. Michael Torian and James Sever came to the Holiday Inn West and, after conversations with Piatt, Torian obtained the keys to the Grand Prix. From the Grand Prix, Torian and Sever unloaded two bales of marijuana totaling fifty pounds at Sever's house and then delivered two bales of approximately eighty-five pounds of marijuana at Nathaniel Yancy's house. Twenty pounds of marijuana remained under the sheet behind the front passenger seat of the vehicle and a bag of fifty-one pounds of marijuana remained in the trunk, all of which was discovered in a search of the car pursuant to a search warrant.

Piatt, Torian, and Yancy were charged in a seven-count indictment. Count I of the indictment charged the three with conspiring to distribute approximately two hundred pounds of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Count II charged Piatt with interstate travel for the purpose of promoting distribution of marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952. Count III charged Piatt with distribution of two hundred pounds of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Torian was charged in Counts IV, V and VI, and Yancy was charged in Count VII. Torian pled guilty to two of the four counts against him and the other two counts were dismissed. At trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Piatt and Yancy on all counts with which they were charged. Piatt was sentenced to three years imprisonment on Count I and three years imprisonment on Count II; such sentences to be served concurrently. On Count III, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a three-year special parole term to run consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts I and II.

I.

The jury was instructed for a period of approximately fifty-five minutes on the numerous counts involved in this case. After deliberating approximately an hour and twenty minutes, the jury indicated verdicts had been reached on three of the five matters before it, and, as it was 7:22 p. m., expressed a desire to go home for the evening. The district judge released the jurors until morning. The next morning, ten minutes after resuming deliberations, the foreman of the jury sent a note to the court requesting "the written instructions, all forty-one." Before it was answered, a second note requesting "the instructions regarding possession and conspiracy," and a third note...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • 732 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1984), 83-1625, United States v. Singer
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • April 18, 1984
    ...made, the government must show by a "preponderance of independent evidence" that a conspiracy existed. United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1232 (8th Cir.1982). This standard provides that a co-conspirator's statements are admissible "if on the independent evidence the dist......
  • 774 F.2d 868 (8th Cir. 1985), 84-5244, United States v. McCrady
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • October 1, 1985
    ...does not apply so as to make admissible Hopman's testimony concerning Regnier's pretrial statement. See United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1232 (8th Cir.1982). Fed.R.Evid. 613(a) does, however, apply to the present situation. This rule, which provides that extrinsic evidence of a prior ......
  • 845 F.2d 1508 (8th Cir. 1988), 87-5288, United States v. Skarda
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • May 9, 1988
    ...the jury to consider the supplemental instructions in the context of all the original instructions, see, e.g., United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1231 (8th Cir.1982), we hold that in the present case the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving supplemental instructions withou......
  • 942 F.2d 477 (8th Cir. 1991), 90-1693, United States v. McKee
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • August 9, 1991
    ...court reiterate certain instructions, we have already rejected his argument. Skarda, 845 F.2d at 1512. See also United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1231 (8th Cir.1982) ("When the jury makes specific requests for reinstruction on certain issues, the district court is justified in lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • 732 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1984), 83-1625, United States v. Singer
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • April 18, 1984
    ...made, the government must show by a "preponderance of independent evidence" that a conspiracy existed. United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1232 (8th Cir.1982). This standard provides that a co-conspirator's statements are admissible "if on the independent evidence the dist......
  • 774 F.2d 868 (8th Cir. 1985), 84-5244, United States v. McCrady
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • October 1, 1985
    ...does not apply so as to make admissible Hopman's testimony concerning Regnier's pretrial statement. See United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1232 (8th Cir.1982). Fed.R.Evid. 613(a) does, however, apply to the present situation. This rule, which provides that extrinsic evidence of a prior ......
  • 845 F.2d 1508 (8th Cir. 1988), 87-5288, United States v. Skarda
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • May 9, 1988
    ...the jury to consider the supplemental instructions in the context of all the original instructions, see, e.g., United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1231 (8th Cir.1982), we hold that in the present case the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving supplemental instructions withou......
  • 942 F.2d 477 (8th Cir. 1991), 90-1693, United States v. McKee
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • August 9, 1991
    ...court reiterate certain instructions, we have already rejected his argument. Skarda, 845 F.2d at 1512. See also United States v. Piatt, 679 F.2d 1228, 1231 (8th Cir.1982) ("When the jury makes specific requests for reinstruction on certain issues, the district court is justified in lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results