U.S. v. Callahan, 76-2401

• Decision Date: 28 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-2401,76-2401
• Citation: 551 F.2d 733
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
• Parties: 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3248, 81 Lab.Cas. P 13,130, 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 881 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard CALLAHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 733

551 F.2d 733

94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3248, 81 Lab.Cas. P 13,130,

1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 881

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard CALLAHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-2401.

United States Court of Appeals,

Sixth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 4, 1977.

Decided March 28, 1977.

Timothy J. Potts, Summers, Potts, Burke & Hildebrand, Richard Callahan, Robert E. Sweeney, Sweeney, Mahon & Vlad, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellant.

Frederick M. Coleman, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Richard S. Stolker, Crim. Div Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges, and FEIKENS, ^* District Judge.

FEIKENS, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a jury conviction on three counts of an indictment charging violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1952. Appellant is a business agent for Local 17 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers, located in Lorain County, Ohio. He was charged with having extorted $1510.00 from the K & B Engineering Company, a Texas-based construction contractor which in August of 1975 was constructing a microwave communications tower in Lorain County, Ohio with out-of-state, non-union labor. Appellant challenges two evidentiary rulings made by the District Court during trial which prevented appellant from presenting any evidence regarding contacts between K & B and other union representatives at other job locations.

The government's chief witness at trial was Thomas Kimble, the supervisor for K & B at the Lorain construction site. He testified that on the morning of August 15, 1975, he arrived at the construction site to learn that a union representative had visited the site earlier. Appellant arrived just before noon and identified himself to Kimble as the business agent for Local 17. Appellant complained of K & B's use of non-union labor to construct the tower when 150 of his own men were then out of work. By this time, approximately 15-25 members of appellant's union had gathered at the site. Kimble testified that these men were "real rowdy, talking," that they had earlier surrounded his truck and prevented it from moving, and that one of them, a union steward named James T. "Red" Stafford, had accused Kimble of "stealing work" and had threatened to damage the tower "unless you cooperate with us."

A discussion ensued between Kimble and appellant. Kimble testified that appellant demanded some payment to his men for K & B's use of non-union labor. Kimble testified that he was afraid of possible violence against his employees and of damage to the tower and his equipment unless he acquiesced. After further discussion, it was agreed that Kimble would secure from his home office in Dallas sufficient funds to pay five of appellant's union men for three days work plus fringe benefits. It was understood by Kimble that none of appellant's men would perform any work for these payments.

Kimble and appellant then drove to a nearby tavern where Kimble contacted his Dallas office by telephone and explained the situation to Mr. Ken Burleson, the owner of K & B. Kimble testified that appellant took the telephone receiver at one point and told Burleson to send the money "if you think anything of the health and welfare of your men and equipment." Later that day, K & B forwarded $1500.00 to Kimble, who obtained the money from the Western Union Office in Lorain in the form of five checks each in the amount of $300.00. The checks were made out to five members of appellant's union, whose names and social security numbers Kimble had earlier recorded at appellant's direction. Kimble and appellant then returned to the construction site, where Kimble paid to each of the five pre-designated union men his $300.00 check plus $2.00 in cash. Thereupon, appellant and the union members left, without performing any work.

On the basis of this testimony and other evidence, appellant was convicted of extortionate obstruction of commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, the unlawful use of a telephone with intent to commit an extortionate obstruction of commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, and the unlawful use of a Western Union facility with intent to commit an extortionate obstruction of commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1952. Appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of $500.00, restitution of $1510.00, and was placed on probation for three years. Appellant was acquitted of a fourth count charging conspiracy to commit an extortionate obstruction of commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.

As his principal defense at trial, appellant sought to establish that the K & B Engineering Company had been involved in similar confrontations with other union representatives at other tower construction sites around the country and had adopted a practice of paying the union or its members a cash amount as a settlement in lieu of hiring local union members. It was appellant's contention that K & B had a strong anti-union bias and insisted on bringing in its own non-union workcrews but that K & B would negotiate with local unions and would routinely pay them off not out of fear of violence or property damage, but rather as a matter of sound business judgment in order to avoid having to hire through a different local union, with different rules and hiring practices, at each construction site. On this basis, appellant contended that Kimble was not motivated by fear in agreeing to pay the $1510.00 to members of appellant's union and that a required element of the crime of extortion was therefore absent. United States v. Billingsley, 474 F.2d 63, 66 (6th Cir. 1973).

Appellant's initial attempt to establish this defense occurred during the cross-examination of Kimble, when appellant's counsel asked:

Q. Prior to this incident, Mr. Kimble, had you ever been approached by union business agents?

Counsel for the government objected to this question, stating his reasons at the ensuring side-bar conference in these terms:

MR. GALE: All right. It seems to me that it can't have any relevance to this proceeding.

The witness is a victim. This is similar to a bank robbery trial. You are asking the victim if he has ever been the victim of a bank robbery before.

Counsel for appellant then offered this purpose for the question:

MR. POTTS: I would make a brief observation.

Mr. Gale is quick to point out, on prior occasions, the state of fear this man was in.

If he has been approached in this situation many times before, I think the jury is entitled to know about this. It would bear upon his mental state.

The District Court thereupon sustained the objection:

THE COURT: I can visualize the situation, Mr. Potts, where the same or similar circumstances at one time may create apprehension, depending on facts and circumstances, and at a subsequent time they may not.

It is not material. We are concerned with whether or not fear was engendered at this particular time.

This ruling was error. Defense counsel's inquiry was an attempt to elicit information on any past confrontations which Kimble may have had with other union representatives in similar circumstances. We believe that such evidence may well have established a routine practice on K & B's part of paying off local unions for the sake of expediency and not out of fear. We further believe that such a routine practice, under Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, would have been relevant in proving that the conduct of K & B on this particular occasion was in conformity therewith. Under Rules 401 and 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the question was therefore proper and should have been permitted. Any danger of confusion, harassment, or prejudice to the government would appear to have been minimal....