Brown v. United States 8212 6193, No. 71

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation36 L.Ed.2d 208,93 S.Ct. 1565,411 U.S. 223
Docket NumberNo. 71
PartiesJoseph Everette BROWN and Thomas Dean Smith, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. —6193
Decision Date17 April 1973

411 U.S. 223
93 S.Ct. 1565
36 L.Ed.2d 208
Joseph Everette BROWN and Thomas Dean Smith, Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 71—6193.
Argued Dec. 7, 1973.
Decided April 17, 1973.

Syllabus

Petitioners were convicted of transporting and conspiring to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce to their coconspirator, whose retail store was searched under a defective warrant while petitioners were in custody in another State. The charges against petitioners were limited to acts committed before the day of the search. At a pretrial hearing on petitioners' motion to suppress evidence seized at the store, petitioners alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the store or the goods, and the District Court denied their motion for lack of standing. At petitioners' trial, the seized goods were introduced into evidence. In addition, police testimony as to statements by petitioners implicating each other were introduced into evidence in a manner contrary to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Bruton error was harmless in view of overwhelming independent proof of guilt and affirmed the District Court's ruling on standing. Held:

1. Petitioners had no standing to contest the admission of the evidence seized under the defective warrant since they alleged no legitimate expectation of privacy or interest of any kind in the premises searched or the goods seized; they had no 'automatic' standing under Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, as the case against them did not depend on possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure; and they could not vicariously assert the personal Fourth Amendment right of the store owner in contesting admission of the seized goods. Pp. 227 230.

2. The testimony erroneously admitted was merely cumulative of other overwhelming and largely uncontroverted evidence properly before the jury, and the Bruton error was harmless. Pp. 230—232.

452 F.2d 868, affirmed.

Lowell W. Lundy, Barbourville, Ky., for petitioners.

Page 224

Mark L. Evans, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners were convicted by a jury of transporting stolen goods and of conspiracy to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and 18 U.S.C. § 371. The central issue now is whether petitioners have standing to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure of merchandise stolen by them but stored in the premises of one Knuckles, a coconspirator. At the time of the seizure from Knuckles, petitioners were in police custody in a different State. Knuckles successfully challenged the introduction of the stolen goods seized from his store under a faulty warrant, and his case was separately tried.

The evidence against petitioners is largely uncontroverted. Petitioner Brown was the manager of a warehouse in Cincinnati, Ohio, owned by a wholesale clothing and household goods company. He was entrusted with the warehouse keys. Petitioner Smith was a truck driver for the company. During 1968 and 1969, the company had experienced losses attributed to pilferage amounting to approximately $60,000 each year. One West, a buyer and supervisor for the company, recovered a slip of paper he had seen drop from Brown's pocket. On the slip, in Brown's handwriting, was a list of warehouse merchandise, together with a price on each item that was well below wholesale cost. West estimated that the lowest legitimate wholesale price for these items would have been a total of about $6,400, while the total as priced by Brown's list was $2,200. The police were

Page 225

promptly notified and set up a surveillance of the warehouse. Ten days later, petitioners were observed wheeling carts containing boxes of merchandise from the warehouse to a truck. From a concealed point, the police took 20 photographs of petitioners loading the merchandise onto the truck. Petitioners then locked the warehouse, and drove off. They were followed and stopped by the police, placed under arrest, advised of their constitutional rights, and, with the loaded truck, taken into custody to police headquarters. The goods in the truck had not been lawfully taken from the warehouse and had a total value of about $6,500.

Following their arrest, and after being fully informed of their constitutional rights, both petitioners made separate confessions to police indicating that they had conspired with Knuckles to steal from the warehouse, that they had stolen goods from the warehouse in the past, and that they had taken these goods, on two occasions about two months before their arrest, to Knuckles' store in Manchester, Kentucky. Petitioners also indicated that they had 'sold' the previously stolen goods on delivery to Knuckles for various amounts of cash. Knuckles' store was then searched pursuant to a warrant, and goods stolen from the company, worth over $100,000 in retail value, were discovered. Knuckles was at the store during the search, but petitioners were in custody in Ohio.

Prior to trial, petitioners and Knuckles1 moved to suppress the stolen merchandise found at Knuckles' store. The prosecution conceded that the warrant for the search of Knuckles' store was defective. The District Court held a hearing on petitioners' motion to suppress the evidence. Petitioners, however, alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in Knuckles' premises or in

Page 226

the goods seized there, nor was any evidence of such an interest presented to the District Court. After the hearing, the District Court granted Knuckles' motion to suppress the goods seized, but denied petitioners' motion for lack of standing. The charges against Knuckles were severed for separate trial.

At petitioners' trial, stolen merchandise seized from Knuckles' store was received in evidence. The events leading to petitioners' arrests upon leaving the warehouse and while they were in possession of stolen goods were fully described by police officers who were eyewitnesses. The 20 photographs taken of the crime in progress were admitted into evidence. There was additional incriminating testimony by the owner of the service station from whom petitioners rented trucks used in the thefts, and by five witnesses who saw petitioners unloading boxes from a truck late at night and carrying the boxes into Knuckles' store. The prosecutor also introduced into evidence, over petitioners' objections, portions of each petitioner's confession which implicated the other in a manner now conceded to be contrary to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Those considerable parts of each petitioner's confession which did not implicate the other were admitted without objection. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recognized that a Bruton error had occurred, but went on to conclude that the independent proof of petitioners' guilt was 'so overwhelming that the error was harmless,' citing Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). The Court of Appeals also held that the stolen merchandise seized pursuant to the defective warrant was properly admitted against petitioners, stating:

'This ruling (of the District Court) was correct because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1059 practice notes
  • Illinois v. Gates, No. 81-430
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1982
    ...limited to situations where the Government seeks to use such evidence against the victim of the unlawful search. Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Wong Sun v. United State......
  • U.S. v. Kelly, No. 75--1686
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 27, 1976
    ...as an element of the charged crime, and he alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises. See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); United States v. Groner, 494 F.2d 499, 501 (5th Cir. The requirement of standing in the context of t......
  • U.S. v. Standefer, No. 78-1909
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 11, 1979
    ...interest in the place searched or the goods seized, but not against another who had such an interest. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Cf. United States v. Azadian, 436 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1971) (defendant's entrapment defense not vicario......
  • Bromwell v. Williams, Civ. No. K-76-926.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • December 30, 1977
    ...court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony that the gun had been stolen. See Tr. 64-65. 18 See also Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230-32, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) (evidence admitted in violation of Bruton rule held harmless error); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1055 cases
  • Illinois v. Gates, No. 81-430
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1982
    ...limited to situations where the Government seeks to use such evidence against the victim of the unlawful search. Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Wong Sun v. United State......
  • U.S. v. Kelly, No. 75--1686
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 27, 1976
    ...as an element of the charged crime, and he alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises. See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); United States v. Groner, 494 F.2d 499, 501 (5th Cir. The requirement of standing in the context of t......
  • U.S. v. Standefer, No. 78-1909
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 11, 1979
    ...interest in the place searched or the goods seized, but not against another who had such an interest. See, e. g., Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Cf. United States v. Azadian, 436 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1971) (defendant's entrapment defense not vicario......
  • Bromwell v. Williams, Civ. No. K-76-926.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • December 30, 1977
    ...court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony that the gun had been stolen. See Tr. 64-65. 18 See also Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230-32, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) (evidence admitted in violation of Bruton rule held harmless error); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • ICEBERG AHEAD: WHY COURTS SHOULD PRESUME BIAS IN CASES OF EXTRANEOUS JUROR CONTACTS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 Nbr. 2, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...Rev. 455, 455. (101.) Id. at 456-61. (102.) 464 U.S. 548 (1984). (103.) Id. at 549-50. (104.) Id. at 553 (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 232 (105.) Id. at 553, 555. (106.) Id. at 553. (107.) Id. (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 759 (1946)). (108.) Eva Kerr, ......
  • U.S. Supreme Court Decisions in Fourth Amendment Cases (1961–2009)
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 36-4, December 2011
    • December 1, 2011
    ...selected forreview via the writ of certiorari process.Cases CitedBerger v. New York, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (1967).Brown v. United States, 36 L. Ed. 2d 208 (1973).Dalia v. United States, 60 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1979).Herring v. United States, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009).Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT