Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau
| Decision Date | 15 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1877,No. 73-1779,No. 73-1775,No. 73-1873,73-1775,73-1779,73-1873,73-1877 |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee v. BEAUMONT GEREAU, ISHMAEL LA BEET, WARREN BALLANTINE, MERAL SMITH, RAPHAEL JOSEPH, Appellants BEAUMONT GEREAU, Appellant in No. 73-1775 and No. 73-1873 ISHMAEL LA BEET, Appellant in No. 73-1776 and No. 73-1874 WARREN BALLANTINE, Appellant in No. 73-1777 and No. 73-1875 MERAL SMITH, Appellant in No. 73-1778 and No. 73-1876 RAPHAEL JOSEPH, Appellant in No. 73-1779 and No. 73-1877 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Appeals from convictions and sentences for murder, assault and robbery, and from denial of motion for new trial. Circuit Court, Seitz, Chief Judge, held that where defendants moved for a new trial because of, and asked for a hearing on, alleged jury tampering, no district court judge was available to hold the hearing, and the prosecution and defense agreed to have a municipal court justice preside and turn the testimony over to the trial judge for findings and a ruling, it was improper for municipal court judge to make findings and for the trial judge to review them by a clearly erroneous standard, and circuit court would remand for de novo review of the hearing, findings to be entered without reliance on those of municipal court judge and a ruling to be made on the motion for a new trial.
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
WILLIAM M. KUNSTLER, ESQ., New York, N.Y., for appellant Beaumont Gereau
MARGARET L. RATNER, ESQ., New York, N.Y., for appellant Warren Ballantine
CHAUNCY ESKRIDGE, ESQ. (MCCOY, MING & BLACK), Chicago, Illinois, for appellant Ishmael La Beet
LEROY A. MERCER, Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for appellant Meral Smith
RONALD T. MITCHELL (MITCHELL & HUNTER), Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V.I., for appellant Raphael Joseph
JULIO A. BRADY, ESQ., United States Attorney, Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I.; JOHN J. BARRY, ESQ., Assistant United States Attorney, Newark, N.J., for appelleeBefore SEITZ, Chief Judge, VAN DUSEN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges
Appeals are taken here from defendants-appellants' conviction, after trial to a jury in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and sentencing for murder, assault and robbery1 and from denial of their motion for a new trial. Because the factual basis for the appeals is somewhat complex, we will elaborate the facts, as relevant, in our discussion of the various issues raised by defendants and set forth here only those facts necessary to a basic understanding of this case.
On the afternoon of September 6, 1972, a group of young men entered the clubhouse area of the Fountain Valley Golf Course in St. Croix. Sixteen persons, including guests and staff, were in the clubhouse area at that time. The intruders, armed with a variety of weapons including a machine gun and shotguns, took cash from a clubhouse shop and snack bar, robbed some of the guests and killed eight persons. Four others were wounded while trying to escape and the remaining four were able to escape unharmed. The survivors reported seeing various numbers of gunmen, agreeing that the men wore masks and fatigue-type shirts and perhaps also fatigue pants.
Prior to the incident at Fountain Valley, arrest warrants had been issued for three of the defendants in this case, Ishmael La Beet, Warren Ballantine and Raphael Joseph, on charges including first degree assault, simple assault and battery, and failure to appear in court afterrelease on bond. La Beet, Ballantine and Joseph had reportedly been seen in the general vicinity of Fountain Valley wearing fatigue shirts, a short time before the crimes with which they are charged here took place. The three immediately became suspects. Police also sought associates of La Beet, Ballantine and Joseph for questioning, among them the remaining defendants in the case, Meral Smith and Beaumont Gereau, who were seen with the trio the night before and afternoon of the Fountain Valley killings.
During the week following the killings, Virgin Islands police working with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested all five of the defendants and seized all the weapons used in the killings along with articles of clothing identified as having been worn by the gunmen and various items taken from guests at the time of the shootings. Before dealing with the defendant's specific contentions, we will summarize the series of arrests, searches and confessions that produced the bulk of the evidence introduced at the trial and all of the evidence use of which is challenged by defendants.
Early on September 7, Smith was arrested at 160 Estate Grove Place, where he had been observed little more than a day earlier with the other defendants. Police engaged in a warrantless search of 160 Estate Grove Place, at the time of Smith's arrest and again a few hours later. On September 8, a police officer attempting to locate another associate of defendants, one Mcintosh, got into an altercation with yet another young man who answered the door at 46 Prince Street, Fredriksted, in front of which Mcintosh had been seen earlier. The fight between the police officer and the young man started at the front door and progressed through the house, ending in a room in which Gereau had taken refuge. The policeman arrested Gereau, who he believed was wanted for failure to appearand answer to an assault charge. Later that day, police returned to and, with the owner-occupant's consent, searched 46 Prince Street. On September 8 and 9, after questioning, Smith and Gereau gave statements to F.B.I, agents regarding their and the other defendants' participation in the Fountain Valley incident. Also on September 9, agents and police conducted a warranted search of 160 Estate Grove Place. Late in the afternoon of September 9, Smith and Gereau were arraigned.
Warrants issued on September 10 for the arrest of defendants La Beet, Ballantine and Joseph for murder, robbery and assault at Fountain Valley. Warrants also were issued for the arrests of two described and partially named Puerto Ricans implicated in the statements given by Smith and Gereau. The three defendants were arrested during the afternoon of September 12 at 527 Hospital Street, Frederiksted. F.B.I, agents and police searched the Hospital Street premises, with a search warrant, at the time of defendants' arrest and again, with a warrant, a few hours later. Statements regarding their participation in the Fountain Valley killings were given by La Beet, prior to the second Hospital Street search, and by Ballantine and Joseph on September 12 before their arraignment that evening. On September 14, Gereau gave another statement, later suppressed, admitting that the two Puerto Ricans he and Smith had implicated in the crimes were fictional.
Before trial, defendants moved to suppress the statements given by them and the evidence seized in the searches noted above. The District Judge suppressed the statements given by defendants Smith and Joseph, finding that they had requested to see a lawyer and were denied an opportunity to do so until, after further questioning, their state-merits were obtained.2 The district court also suppressed Gereau's statement of September 14, which was not immediately preceded by warning Gereau of his right to have counsel present. In all other respects the motion to suppress was denied. Crim. No. 97/1972 (D.V.I. July 23, 1973). Defendants contend that the Court erred in denying suppression of other statements and tangible evidence. We turn now to those contentions.
The first line of attack on admission of statements by defendants, Gereau, La Beet and Ballantine is the defense claim that the statements were obtained as a result of brutal police treatment. Defendants allege that they were beaten, shocked with electric shock batons, burned with cigar stubs, partially suffocated by police placing plastic bags over their heads and by covering their mouths while dripping water into their nostrils, hung from certain trees, and otherwise mistreated. Testimony by various witnesses is pointed to by defendants as supporting portions of defendants' testimony regarding police brutality directed at them. They admit that a wealth of conflicting testimony was introduced by the government and that defendant's testimony along with the testimony relied on by defendants as corroborating their stories was found by the District Judge not to be credible. Defendants contend, however, that the court below used improper legal standards to judge credibility.
[1-3] It is the law of this Circuit, as well as many others, that a fact-finder's determination of credibility is not subject to appellate review. United States v. Brown, 471 F.2d 297, 298 (3d Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Tillery v. Cavell, 294 F.2d 12, 22 (3d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370U.S. 945 (1962); see, e.g., United States v. Owens, 472 F.2d 780, 784-85 (8th Cir. 1973); Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp., 466 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1126 (1973). Credibility determinations may be influenced by factors such as a witness' demeanor, his tone of voice and other matters not subject to appellate scrutiny. For this reason, credibility determinations are uniquely the province of the fact-finder. Assuming, however, that we can separate the standards employed to make such determinations from their application to decide credibility, we find no error in the District Judge's selection of those standards. The court below found, on the basis of a horticultural expert's testimony, that defendants could not possibly have been "hung" as they claimed from any of the trees in the area where the hangings allegedly took place; defendants' testimony, found false in this respect, was then discounted by the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. George, 79-2082
... ... on local felony charges lodged against him by the government of the Virgin Islands. On September 29, 1978, he had been released on bail by a judge ... 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 11 V.I. 265, 293, 502 F.2d 914, 930-931 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S ... ...
- Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau
-
Maduro v. P&M Nat'l, Inc.
... ... Civ. App. No. 93-133District Court of the Virgin Islands Div. of St. CroixOctober 20, 1994Appeal from dismissal with ... Government of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 11 V.I. 265, 295-300 (3d Cir. 1974). Appellants have failed to allege, ... ...
-
James v. James, D.C. Civil No. 1987/342
... ... Civil No. 1987/342T.C. Civil No. D-84/87District Court of the Virgin Islands Div. of St. CroixDecember 16, 1988Appeal from Territorial Court ... Gereau, 502 F.2d 914, 932, 11 V.I. 265, 296 (3d Cir. 1974).[6] As noted above, no ... ...