U.S. v. Bleckner, 78-2724
| Decision Date | 20 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2724,78-2724 |
| Citation | 601 F.2d 382 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry J. BLECKNER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Eric J. Swenson, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellee.
Marshall W. Krause, Larkspur, Cal., argued for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before CHOY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, * District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on May 16, 1978 of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States by hindering the impartial application of federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and four counts of wilfully making false statements to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
On or about June 18, 1973, the appellant, Henry Bleckner, a business representative of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ("SFRA"), met William Lynch, an employee of Lynch & Sons Vans and Storage ("Lynch & Sons"), a family-owned moving and storage company. According to Lynch's testimony, among the subjects discussed at the meeting was the federally assisted relocation of a food processing plant, the Oppenheimer Casing Company ("Oppenheimer"), from Hunter's point to South San Francisco as part of a joint city/federal urban renewal project. Lynch testified that appellant made a statement which Lynch took to mean that if he (Lynch) put three bids together, the minimum required by SFRA regulations, the relocation job would be his.
Although never instructed by Bleckner to do so, Lynch sought to create the appearance of competitive bidding by inducing two other movers to submit false bid packages. The bids included estimates for subcontracting work at Oppenheimer's new site in South San Francisco. Lynch's bid for his company estimated the cost of the subcontracting work to be $23,000. However, two Oppenheimer officials, Dolgoff and Levaco, allegedly instructed Lynch not to perform any of the subcontracting work because Oppenheimer's out-of-state headquarters, unaware that the expense of the subcontracting work was reimbursable, had already made provisions for the necessary subcontracting work. Lynch testified that his bid's estimate of $23,000 for the subcontracting represented a "kick-back" that was later paid to Dolgoff and Levaco. Appellant testified that while he knew that Lynch's bid provided for subcontracting work, he knew neither who was to perform it nor when it was to be performed.
The final claim package submitted by Lynch & Sons recited the three false bids and included Lynch's estimate for the $23,000 of subcontracting work. Appellant signed the claim form and recommended payment thereof. The Government contended at trial that appellant knew that the claim form contained the falsified item, but appellant denied it.
In December, 1973, the Department of Housing and Urban Development paid Lynch & Sons $30,471 for the Oppenheimer move and satisfied an outstanding federal tax lien of $19,694 on behalf of Lynch & Sons. Lynch then paid Dolgoff and Levaco $23,600 as a "kick-back" on or about January 3, 1974.
On January 4, 1974, appellant went to his safety deposit box at the Bank of Tokyo in San Francisco. Thereafter, in February, 1974, appellant purchased $600 in traveler's checks and in October, 1974, another $6,000 which appellant testified he purchased with funds from his safety deposit box. Appellant moved to suppress this evidence on the ground that it was of low probative value and highly prejudicial. The trial court denied the motion on April 5, 1978.
The Government contended that the money in appellant's safety deposit box was part of the $23,600 "kick-back" paid to Dolgoff and Levaco. Appellant explained that the money used to purchase the traveler's checks had been secreted away from his usual income in anticipation of an adverse property settlement with his estranged, now former, wife.
Appellant asserts two grounds of error: First, that the trial court erroneously limited his cross-examination of the Government's key witness, William Lynch. Second, that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress.
Mr. Lynch was charged in the same indictment with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, seven counts of making false statements to an agency of the United States and two counts of income tax evasion. Following plea bargaining, Lynch pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count and the Government agreed to dismiss the other counts against him in return for his cooperation at appellant's trial. Lynch appeared before the trial judge for sentencing on January 23, 1978 and was given a split sentence of 18 months with six months to be served, and the remainder suspended with probation for three years, and fined $5,000.
During Lynch's direct examination, the jury learned that all but the conspiracy count against Lynch had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...914 F.3d 112, 180 (3d Cir. 2019) (providing examples of reasons for limiting the scope of cross-examination); United States v. Bleckner, 601 F.2d 382, 385 (9th Cir. 1979) (explaining the trial court's decision to limit cross-examination will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discreti......
-
U.S. v. McClintock
... ... Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1978, 76 L.Ed.2d 96, 104 (1983). It permits us "to supervise 'the administration of criminal justice' among the parties before the bar." United ... Bleckner, 601 F.2d 382, 385 (9th Cir.1979); see Chipman, 628 F.2d at 530 ... McClintock ... ...
-
U.S. v. Kachanon
...on a relevant topic was completely precluded. See, e.g., Chipman v. Mercer, 628 F.2d 528 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bleckner, 601 F.2d 382 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Alvarez-Lopez, 559 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir.1977).4 The "ruses" to which Suracek Kachanon refers in his brief were desi......
- United States v. Horvath