Shelton v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 May 1948
• Docket Number: No. 9514.,9514.
• Parties: SHELTON v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

83 US App. DC 257, 169 F.2d 665 (1948)

SHELTON v. UNITED STATES.

No. 9514.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued November 24, 1947.

Decided May 24, 1948.

Writ of Certiorari Denied October 11, 1948.

Mr. Jay Paul Shelton, appellant, pro se.

Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. and John P. Burke, Asst. U. S. Atty, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Mr. John H. Burnett, of Washington, D. C., appointed by this court as amicus curiae, urged reversal.

Before EDGERTON, CLARK and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.

Writ of Certiorari Denied October 11, 1948. See 69 S.Ct. 24.

CLARK, Associate Justice.

Appellant was indicted for grand larceny and for violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act.¹ He was tried in the District Court where a verdict of guilty on both counts was returned by the jury; sentence was imposed for one to five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Many asserted errors allegedly committed by the trial court and the prosecution are enumerated by appellant, who has prosecuted his appeal pro se. He maintains that some of the asserted errors are perhaps insignificant standing alone, but that in the aggregate they are sufficient to demonstrate that appellant was denied a fair trial.

Four days prior to the inception of the trial in this case, appellant was convicted in the same court following trial on a charge of perjury.² It is contended by appellant that it was error for the lower court to deny his motion for continuance in this case, and force him to trial so soon after the prior conviction, when the jury before which he was to be tried had been in the courthouse at the time the prior trial was concluded. The only motion for continuance in the record, however, did not mention possible knowledge by any juror of the recent conviction, and appellant concedes that no direct evidence of it was put before the jury in this case. The record shows that the presiding judge excused two jurors prior to the trial immediately upon disclosure that they had even slight knowledge of appellant's involvement in the prior action, and that he carefully supervised examination of the prospective jurors designed to uncover any possible partiality among them. Defense counsel announced that he was content with the jury after exercising only three peremptory challenges. From the record it seems clear that no error was committed in denying the motion for continuance, and that appellant suffered no prejudice before this jury. See Medley v. United States, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 155 F.2d 857, certiorari denied, 1946, 328 U.S. 873, 66 S.Ct. 1377, 90 L.Ed. 1642.

On September 1, 1944, a used-car dealer in Baltimore, Maryland, purchased a 1941 Chrysler automobile from a person who gave the name "Arthur Robbins." Subsequently it was discovered that the automobile had been stolen in Washington, D. C., on August 25, 1944, and that the Maryland title on the car was issued upon surrender of a Virginia title which was found to have been forged.

The principal witness for the prosecution was one Carter, who sold the Chrysler automobile which appellant was charged with having stolen in Washington, D. C., and transported to Baltimore. Carter's testimony was that he went to Baltimore, then the residence of appellant, upon the latter's solicitation and request, and there received from appellant the title to this automobile and OPA gasoline ration forms necessary to effect the sale. Acting as the agent for appellant, Carter testified, he sold the automobile to the used-car dealer for $1230. This amount was paid by check to Carter, who was at the time impersonating and using the name of "Arthur Robbins." When Carter insisted on receiving cash the buyer of the car accompanied him to a Baltimore bank, where Carter endorsed the name "Arthur Robbins" on the check. Carter was thereafter tried and convicted in a Baltimore court on a charge of false pretenses arising out of this transaction.

In the trial of this case Carter steadfastly denied that he endorsed the check, which is directly contrary to the testimony given by the purchaser of the car. Appellant contends this and other alleged perjury on the part of Carter vitiates the whole case against him since, appellant asserts, there was no evidence other than Carter's testimony which served to link appellant to the crimes charged. The assertion is definitely untenable, on the face of the record. Further, the trial court was extremely careful in his charge to the jury to specify the caution with which Carter's testimony was to be considered, and it was proper for the jury to believe Carter's testimony in its main outlines if they chose to do so.³ The maxim, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," as applied to witnesses, is not an inflexible rule of evidence, nor is it mandatory; the trial court need not require the jury to disregard a witness' testimony altogether even if it is proved or conceded to be false in part.⁴ As Professor Wigmore has pointed out, the maxim has to do solely with the weight of the testimony, not with its admissibility. 2 Wigmore, Evidence, 2d Ed. 1923, § 1008.⁵ Under our judicial system the jury alone is charged with forming a conclusion as to the truth of the testimony offered.

There is more than a rule of law requiring observance in connection with this contention advanced by appellant, for his own testimony corroborated that given by Carter to some extent, while other witnesses were introduced to provide further corroboration. The jury was not called upon to rely solely on the testimony given by Carter in order to find the appellant guilty as charged.

Appellant next advances an argument that it was error for the trial court to disallow proffered evidence to establish "why" he fled from custody, and to admit evidence which was seized in his New York hotel room shortly after he was recaptured. This argument necessitates a brief recitation of the background for this case.

In October of 1945 appellant was served with a warrant at Richmond, Virginia, to answer for the charges which form the basis of this case. Appellant was then in Federal custody awaiting trial on other charges. Shortly after the removal hearing, which followed service of this warrant, appellant was left unattended in the office of the United States Marshal. He seized this opportunity to flee from custody, and remained a fugitive until he was recaptured by New York City policemen two and a half months later.⁶ His recapture occurred as a result of his wrongful attempt to purchase two automobile registration stamping machines (such as are used by the Motor Vehicle Department of the city of New York, for official purposes), posing as an employee of the American Automobile Association. At the time he ordered these machines appellant aroused the suspicion of an employee of the stamp company, who notified the police; the police investigated and found appellant was falsely representing himself at the stamp company, and were there to apprehend and arrest him when he returned to pick up the stamping machines. Appellant did not give his true name to the arresting officers, nor did he direct them to his hotel room, which was discovered by the officers in the course of their investigation following the arrest. Their search of the room, for which appellant had registered under the same assumed name given to the officers, disclosed two forged driver's permits, bearing other names, which were admitted in evidence in the trial of this case.

Appellant contends that he should have been allowed to introduce testimony for the purpose of showing that during the period he was in custody he had ample opportunity to escape, and that he fled from custody "not because he dreaded to face this charge, but because he had been in custody seven months with no apparent progress in this case and he was simply tired of being `juggled around.'" The Marshals who had custody of appellant prior to his escape were called as witnesses by defense counsel, whose line of questioning was obviously designed to show that appellant had ample opportunity to escape. This was effectively accomplished, and we find no substantiation in the record for the contention that the questioning was unduly restricted by the trial court.

Evidence of the flight was properly introduced, as was the evidence pertaining to the recapture of appellant. Funk v. United States, 1900, 16 App.D.C. 478; 1 Wigmore, Evidence, 2d Ed. 1923, § 276. The evidence objected to was seized by New York officers, not by Federal officers, and it is obvious at once that the Fourth Amendment, relied upon by appellant, forms no sound basis for the objection since it forms no limitation upon the powers of State or Municipal officers. Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann. Cas.1915C, 1177. But even if the search and seizure were proved to be unlawful, the evidence thus procured would nevertheless be admissible under New York law,⁷ and, under the same hypothesis, is clearly admissible in the Federal court notwithstanding.⁸ This evidence was relevant in connection with the proof of flight,⁹ which was properly introduced even though appellant was willing to concede the fact of flight, and we find no error in its admission.

Appellant further contends that it was error for the trial court to admit evidence relating to appellant's arrest and trial for other offenses. The argument on this point is directed to statements made by the two United States Marshals, who were called as witnesses by defense counsel, which were made under direct examination,...