Purpura v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 November 1919
• Docket Number: 1740.
• Citation: 262 F. 473
• Parties: PURPURA v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

262 F. 473

PURPURA v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1740.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

November 13, 1919

The plaintiff in error, who will be referred to as defendant (such being the position he occupied in the court below), was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upon the charge that, while in the postal service of the United States as a clerk in the Norfolk post office, he did unlawfully and feloniously steal a certain package addressed to Seaboard National Bank, Norfolk Va., which package had come into his possession by virtue of his employment, said package containing the sum of $3,500. He was placed on trial, and upon his pleading not guilty, after a hearing before a jury, he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of five years in the penitentiary. The case comes here on writ of error for review.

Statement of Facts.

The facts may be epitomized as follows:

It appears that the defendant entered the Post Office Department as a substitute clerk in the year 1914, and remained so employed at a constantly increasing salary until the year 1918, when he was employed in the registry division of said office, and he so remained with the department until he was dismissed from the service of the government on the 17th day of January, 1919.

The charge against the defendant grows out of the alleged loss of a registered package containing $3,500 in bills, which was sent from the United States post office at Rocky Mount, N.C addressed to Seaboard National Bank, Norfolk, Va. This package left the Rocky Mount post office on June 19, 1918 and was received at the Norfolk post office on June 20, 1918 about 11:10 a.m. of that day.

Witness R. J. Whitehead testified that he last saw this package in the Norfolk office at 4:15 p.m. on June 20th, and that he then placed a notice of the receipt of the same in the post office lock box of the Seaboard National Bank; that he went off duty and left the post office at 4:15 p.m. of that day, and in his testimony he gives the names of the employes having access to the package, who were on duty at that time, but states that Purpura was not then on duty. This witness is corroborated by C. M. Wolfe. This latter witness was chief clerk in the registry division of the Norfolk office, and states that the package was last seen at 4:15 p.m. on June 20th. He also gives the names of the employes who were on duty at that time, the defendant not being one of them. He further states that from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on June 21st, the following employes were on duty, with access to such package, if the same was there, namely: Wolfe, Swift, Purpura, Whitehead, and Clement.

M. E. Edson, an employe in the registry division of the Norfolk office, testifying on behalf of the government, states that he was on duty from 1 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 20th, and that it was his duty, when so employed, to see that the registered packages were put in the office safe; that he did not count or check these packages, and that he could only tell that all packages had been placed in the safe by not finding any remaining out; and that he does not recall the package in question at all. All of the above witnesses testified on behalf of the government, and their testimony was the only direct evidence offered by the government as to what actually became of the package on June 20th. This is substantially all the evidence offered by the government as to the physical handling of the package.

However, another investigation was instituted about October 18th, by G. G. Himmelwright, James B. Robertson, John S. Lemen, W. Chambers, and W. D. Kahn. These were well-trained inspectors of long experience. On the morning of the 18th, just as the defendant was entering the post office building in Norfolk, Inspector Kahn, one of the five named, requested Purpura to accompany him to the office of Inspector Himmelwright about 11 o'clock Friday morning, October 18th, and was detained continuously in the presence of these inspectors until the following day at or about the same time. Mr. Himmelwright, testifying for the government, says:

'Q. So for 24 hours he was in charge of post office inspectors? A. I do not know the number of hours, but approximately, yes. I would say from between 11 and 12 o'clock on the morning of the 18th until about the same time the next day. Q. And spent the night with them? A. Yes; with Post Office Inspector Kahn, I think. ' Inspector Robertson, testifying on behalf of the government, states: 'I recollect that distinctly, some time during the afternoon, the boy remarked that he had not had anything to eat; I think he said he had not had his breakfast.'

It appears that, in the course of the interview between the inspectors and the defendant on the 18th of October, he made a written statement denying the knowledge of the package, but after making this statement he was not permitted to return home; the reason assigned by the inspectors being that they desired to interview Mr. Casper and his daughter, whose names had been mentioned in the affidavit the defendant had made before the inspectors on the 18th, and that they did not desire him to depart until they could be interviewed. On the early morning of the 19th of October, while the defendant was dressing in the room with Inspector Kahn, which room they had both occupied at the Neddo Hotel, the subject of the package was again brought up by Mr. Kahn, who testified as follows: 'In the room, before I left, while we were dressing, I said to Purpura: 'Miss Casper has contradicted every statement practically which you have made in your affidavit to-day, and which puts you in a pretty bad light. While you have denied any gift to her, she has stated to us that you had bought her a ring, a plush dress, suit, and trunk, and various articles of clothing."

This conversation took place before breakfast on the morning of the 19th, and the same witness proceeds to testify as follows to the subsequent occurrences: 'Q. You had her written statement denying the statements Purpura had made to you? A. Yes, sir. That was about all that was said; that it looks pretty bad; and when we got him in the room we sat possibly 15 minutes, not much more than that. Robertson, Himmelwright, and he and I were there. He asked me to step outside. I stepped out of the door, and a little to the side of the door, and we talked. He first said, 'Can I withdraw that statement I made yesterday?' I said, 'No; you cannot withdraw it, but you can make any additional statement you wish to make.' That was the affidavit he had made before Lemen and Robertson on the 18th. I told him that I was convinced that he had stolen this package, and about this way, and he said, 'Yes; I know I did it; I hate like the devil to admit it."

The defendant and the witness then returned to Mr Himmelwright's office, and the statement which was relied upon by the government was then written out by Inspector Chambers, with various suggestions from Inspector Kahn. Inspector Kahn, in testifying, said: 'He showed no objection whatever to writing the statement. He resented nothing that we did. ' Thus it appears that the government's case rests upon a statement, not written by the defendant, but by Inspector Chambers, containing suggestions of Inspector Kahn, signed by the defendant, after being detained 24 hours surrounded at all times by one or the other of the inspectors, who were well trained, and was told that it looked very bad for him. He was given to understand by one of the inspectors that he believed he had stolen the package, and the inspector with whom he had to remain during the...