838 F.2d 468 (4th Cir. 1987), 86-5032, U.S. v. Bagguley

Docket Nº:86-5032, 86-5033.
Citation:838 F.2d 468
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. v. David Frank BAGGULEY, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. George Evans HARP, Appellant.
Case Date:December 22, 1987
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 468

838 F.2d 468 (4th Cir. 1987)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.


David Frank BAGGULEY, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee


George Evans HARP, Appellant.

Nos. 86-5032, 86-5033.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

December 22, 1987

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Chief District Judge. (C-CR-85-64-08)

George V. Laughrun, II; Richard M. Koch (Goodman, Carr, Nixon & Laughrun; Walker, Palmer & Miller, on brief, for appellants.

Max O. Cogburn, Jr., Chief Assistant United States Attorney (Charles R. Brewer, United States Attorney, on brief), for appellee.

Before WIDENER and JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.


David Frank Bagguley and George Evans Harp appeal from their convictions by a jury of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846 and for possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Appellants claim error in several of the trial judge's evidentiary rulings; in the laying of venue in the Western District of North Carolina; in the district court's refusal to grant defendants their requested number of additional peremptory challenges; in the court's admonishing and questioning defense witnesses; and in its refusal to issue two writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum. Appellants also complain that a DEA agent's pre-trial warnings to defense witnesses not to perjure themselves violated Harp's due process rights. We find no prejudicial error and affirm.


The activities out of which the convictions for conspiracy and possession in this case arose occurred while appellants, along with seven co-defendants, were prisoners in the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. The subject matter of the conspiracy was heroin that originated in California with the family of co-conspirato Ciopat Siripan, who entered a guilty plea during trial. From California, the heroin followed a route to Granite falls, North Carolina, the home of the parents of William Merle Wright, another co-conspirator, who cooperated with the government after pleading guilty in this case. Wright's mother was to give the package containing the heroin to Wright's girlfriend, Sandra Edmisten. From Edmisten the package was to go to indiana and ultimately to Barbara Harp, appellant Harp's wife. Part of the heroin then was to have been smuggled into the prison in Terre Haute and the remainder sold through a severed co-defendant, Billy Youngworth, in Boston.

Because Wright's father, in Granite Falls, became suspicious about the package he had been told contained "legal papers," he gave it to the local sheriff's department, which in turn gave it to the DEA. Finding heroin in the package, the DEA foiled the scheme by replacing the heroin with flour and then, as the conspirators had planned, delivering the "heroin" to an address where Barbara Harp later came to retrieve it. She was arrested, along with her two companions, and all three pleaded guilty

The government's evidence that Bagguley and Harp were involved in the conspiracy to possess and distribute this heroin consisted of the testimony of three co-defendants who pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government. Other evidence was in the form of tapes of telephone conversations placed by different conspirators from the prison. These calls included ones placed by William Wright to Sandra Edmisten in the Western District of North Carolina.

Telephone conversations of prisoners at the Terre Haute correctional facility are routinely monitored and taped and the tapes stored in a locked room at the prison. Prisoners are made aware of the monitoring by posted signs and by...

To continue reading