McManaman v. United States

• Decision Date: 11 February 1964
• Docket Number: 7323.,No. 7322,7322
• Parties: LeRoy B. McMANAMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Rubie Charles JENKINS, Appellant. v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

327 F.2d 21 (1964)

LeRoy B. McMANAMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Rubie Charles JENKINS, Appellant. v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 7322, 7323.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

January 28, 1964.

Rehearing Denied February 11, 1964.

Ernest J. Rice, of Doherty, Rice & Benfer, Topeka, Kan., for appellant LeRoy B. McManaman.

Elmore A. Page, Tulsa, Okl., for appellant Rubie Charles Jenkins.

Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

A four-count indictment was returned in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, charging four persons¹ with receiving and concealing automobiles moving in interstate commerce, knowing them to have been stolen, and for conspiracy. Count 2 of the indictment charged that the appellants, LeRoy B. McManaman and Rubie Charles Jenkins so received and concealed a 1960 Chevrolet Impala 4-door Sedan. Count 3 charged that they received and concealed a 1960 Ford Fairlane 500. Appellants were found guilty on counts 2 and 3 and of the conspiracy alleged in count 4. Each was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years on count 2, and a like sentence on count 3 to be served concurrently with the count 2 sentence. The sentence on count 4 was for a period of 3 years, to run consecutively with the sentences imposed on count 2. Separate appeals from the convictions were consolidated.

At the outset, it is urged that the trial court erred in denying a motion to discharge the jury panel. In substance, it is contended that the jury panel did not represent a cross-section of the community inhabitants and "was over-weighted with people from an upper income bracket." The Deputy Clerk of Court testified that the names of approximately 500 prospective jurors were placed in the jury box from which the panel was chosen. These names were furnished by designated persons throughout the district who were instructed to select only persons who had the necessary qualifications of jurors. There was no proof of any irregularities in the selection of the names placed in the jury box or that there was an arbitrary or systematic course of conduct to exclude any class of persons from the names submitted. To substantiate their position that the entire jury panel should have been discharged, appellants sought to establish that it did not contain representatives of persons with low annual incomes. The court refused to interrogate the members of the panel to discover their "economic status." It is insufficient, to sustain a challenge to the legality of a jury panel, to show only that a particular group of persons is not represented. The test of the validity of the panel is whether there has been a systematic attempt to exclude a particular class or group which is eligible for jury service. As we said in Windom v. United States, 260 F.2d 384, 385:

"In the exercise of superintending power in the administration of federal criminal justice, the appellate courts have been quick to strike down any conviction by a jury in the selection of which members of any race, creed or economic status are systematically excluded. * * *

"But the burden of making a showing that some class was improperly excluded from the jury lies with the defense. Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 69 S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed. 187. * * *"

See also Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 69 S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed. 187, reh. denied 336 U.S. 907, 69 S.Ct. 488, 93 L. Ed. 1072; Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217, 66 S.Ct. 984, 90 L.Ed. 1181; Padgett v. Buxton-Smith Mercantile Co., 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 597, cert. denied 365 U.S. 828, 81 S.Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 705; Bary v. United States, 10 Cir., 248 F.2d 201, cert. denied 359 U.S. 934,² 79 S.Ct. 649, 3 L.Ed.2d 635.

The appellant McManaman contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the court unduly limited the cross-examination of the government's witnesses and that remarks by the court during the trial and statements of government counsel in closing argument were prejudicial. The limitation of cross-examination is discretionary with the court, and the exercise of that discretion will be overruled only upon abuse which is clearly prejudicial. Darby v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 896; Foster v. United States, 10 Cir., 282 F.2d 222. We find no limitation of the right of cross-examination which even borders on the abuse of that discretion. The remarks of the judge, to which objection was made, related to a government witness whose reputation was concededly bad, and who had given information to federal and state officials in connection with the handling of stolen automobiles. On cross-examination, in referring to the witness, an F.B.I. agent was asked: "Well, certainly in your capacity you determined the type of person you were dealing with, didn't you, or did it matter?" The court did not sustain an objection to this question, but stated: "I don't think the jury is — there is any question in the jury's mind about the character of Jack Doyle. I don't think it is very material." Obviously, the court was referring to the admitted questionable character of the witness, and, if anything, the remarks were helpful to the defendant.

The remarks of government counsel in closing argument which are said to be prejudicial were: "* * * We are not dealing with any amateurs." "Even these defendants, I truly believe, are entitled to a fair trial. * * *" "I opened my closing statement by saying we are not dealing with ordinary violators." These remarks were not of a character as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial and were not unwarranted by the record. "The dominating question, always, is whether the argument complained of was so offensive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial." Isaacs v. United States, 8 Cir., 301 F.2d 706, 736, cert. denied 371 U.S. 818, 83 S.Ct. 32, 9 L.Ed.2d 58; Bary v. United States, supra. Furthermore, no objections were made to the remarks at the time, and they will not be considered on appeal in the absence of error prejudicial to the fundamental rights of an accused. Isaacs v. United States, supra; Paschen v. United States, 7 Cir., 70 F.2d 491; Orebo v. United States, 9 Cir., 293 F.2d 747, cert. denied 368 U.S. 958, 82 S.Ct. 402, 7 L.Ed.2d 389.

The appellant Jenkins contends that the evidence was insufficient against him to sustain the verdict on either count 2 or 3, or on the conspiracy charge. In count 3 he and McManaman were charged with receiving and concealing a 1960 Ford Fairlane 500 automobile moving in interstate commerce knowing it to have been stolen. The evidence is without dispute that this car was stolen from the premises of an automobile dealer at Sarcoxie, Missouri during the night of September 8, 1960, and on September 27th it was observed in the possession of and being driven by Jenkins in Topeka, Kansas. At this time the auto displayed a Nebraska license and the original serial number had been replaced. On September 29, 1960, Jenkins was again seen driving the Ford. On both occasions defendant McManaman accompanied Jenkins. Later, on September 29, 1960, when Jenkins was arrested, he was in possession of the keys to the Ford, and also a slip of paper upon which was written a number corresponding to the serial number then on the Ford. Without explanation, this evidence was sufficient to warrant an inference of guilty possession. Williams v. United States and Meier v. United States, 10 Cir. 323 F.2d 90; Seefeldt v. United States, 10 Cir., 183 F.2d 713³; United States v. Guido, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 105; United States v. Angel, 7 Cir., 201 F.2d 531.

We have, however, been unable to find any evidence in the record which connects Jenkins with the receipt and concealment of the Chevrolet automobile described in count 2. The fact that he may have been an associate of McManaman who had previously disposed of the Chevrolet in Topeka is not adequate. The record is totally lacking of any evidence to show that Jenkins had anything to do with this car, or that he had received or concealed it, and his conviction on count 2 must be set aside.

Jenkins does not question the existence of the conspiracy alleged in count 4 of the indictment, but maintains that there is a total lack of evidence to show that he participated in it. It is seldom possible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence, but a conviction will be upheld where the circumstances, acts and conduct of the parties are sufficient to establish that they entered into an agreement to commit the crime charged, which is followed by an overt act to carry out the agreement. Blackford v. United States, 10 Cir., 195 F.2d 896, cert. denied 343 U.S. 945, 72 S.Ct. 1041, 96 L.Ed. 1350. It is not essential that each conspirator participate in all the activities of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy or have knowledge of such activities. It is sufficient if the conspiracy is established and that the convicted persons knowingly contributed their efforts in furtherance of it. Young v. United States, 10 Cir., 168 F.2d 242, cert. denied 334 U.S. 859, 68 S.Ct. 1533, 1534, 92 L.Ed. 1779, 1780; Berenbeim v. United States, 10 Cir., 164 F.2d 679, cert. denied Schechter v. United States, 333 U.S. 827, 68 S.Ct. 454, 92 L.Ed. 1113.

The evidence is without conflict that the defendant Herpel, in July, 1960, sold a stolen automobile to a dealer in Topeka known as "Jack Doyle", and made arrangements for the delivery of others in the future for what was termed "good prices." Doyle notified local police and agents of the F.B.I. of his dealings, and each vehicle delivered thereafter was examined by the officers and found to have been stolen. In each instance it was discovered that the serial number on the door post had been removed and replaced by another number which did not correspond with the confidential...