U.S. v. Conn
| Decision Date | 30 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1682,84-1682 |
| Citation | 769 F.2d 420 |
| Parties | 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1190 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold CONN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
John F. Podliska, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Herbert A. Bates, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
Before COFFEY, FLAUM and WRIGHT, * Circuit Judges.
Conn appeals from a jury conviction on one count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) ("RICO"), and nine counts of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951.
The conviction resulted from the government's "Operation Greylord" designed to uncover corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The indictment charged that, while employed as a deputy clerk, Conn solicited and received money to influence public officials in the performance of their official duties.
This appeal presents three questions, each of which we answer in the affirmative:
(1) Whether the court properly admitted tape recorded conversations of third parties;
(2) Whether the government proved the requisite effect on interstate commerce;
(3) Whether the government proved that Conn participated in the conduct of the affairs of the Circuit Court of Cook County through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Conn asserts that the court erred in admitting into evidence taped conversations of out-of-court witnesses. He contends that the evidence was hearsay, the prejudicial effect of which outweighed its probative value. He asserts also that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated.
From September 1980 through January 1982, Conn solicited and received $1,610 from FBI Special Agent David Ries and FBI Project Development Specialist Terrence Hake to influence the disposition of seven state court cases involving traffic offenses, shoplifting, and criminal damage to property. During this time, Ries and Hake, while acting as criminal defense attorneys, engaged in over 40 tape recorded conversations with Conn and others.
The jury heard 27 tape recorded conversations. Defendant's pretrial motion in limine was directed only to five of these involving conversations with third parties:
(1) Hake spoke with Judge John Devine on July 7, 1981, regarding People v. Benson, a DUI case;
(2) Hake spoke with Judge Devine on August 6, 1981, regarding People v. Cramer, a DUI case;
(3) Hake spoke with Judge John Laurie on December 17, 1981, with reference to People v. McClain, a shoplifting case;
(4) Hake spoke with Judge Laurie on January 4, 1982, as to People v. McClain; and
(5) Hake spoke with Police Officer James Trunzo on December 18, 1981, regarding People v. McClain.
Judge Nordberg cautioned the jury on the limited use of this evidence. To assist the jury in understanding the tapes, the court provided each juror with a notebook containing written transcripts. These notebooks included cautionary instructions both before and after each transcribed passage that involved conversations with third parties.
For the first two conversations listed above, the court instructed:
The conversation ... has been offered and received in evidence for the limited purposes of showing that the conversation took place and showing the sequence of events. The statements should not be considered by you for any other purpose.
As the government asserts, the conversations between Hake and Judge Devine were not hearsay because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c) (defining hearsay). The court admitted them as "verbal acts and as an establishment of the ... background and continuity and explanation of the subsequent taped conversations."
This evidence is significant only when combined with other evidence of Conn's relationship with Judge Devine. It showed that meetings occurred during which Devine instructed Hake to see Conn. The relationship between the two public officials was explained. The evidence was properly admitted.
The first of Hake's two conversations with Judge Laurie regarding People v. McClain occurred on December 17, 1981. Hake had met with Conn several times and Conn had agreed to see Laurie. Following introductions, Laurie told Hake that "your friend called me." When Hake asked if he could get a not guilty on McClain, Laurie said, "sure". Laurie then advised Hake how to present the case in court.
The second Hake-Laurie conversation occurred on January 4, 1982 just before Laurie heard evidence in a bench trial and found McClain not guilty. Here, Hake and Laurie discussed whether to try the case. Hake discussed his contact with Conn on this matter, which Laurie acknowledged.
The conversation with police officer James Trunzo occurred on December 18, 1981. Hake asked where Conn was working and began to discuss Conn's association with Trunzo. Trunzo confirmed that he had telephoned Laurie on Conn's behalf.
As to these conversations, the court's cautionary instruction read:
The conversation which you will hear ... is offered as evidence of the intent and state of mind of Defendant Harold Conn. You should not consider that conversation for any other purpose.
The court held a pretrial hearing pursuant to United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128, 1131 (7th Cir.1978). It ruled that the transcript of Conn's conversation with Hake demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Conn, Judge Laurie and Officer Trunzo were coconspirators. The trial judge ruled also that the statements at issue were made in the course and in furtherance of that conspiracy.
At the close of all evidence, the court reconsidered and reaffirmed these rulings. The findings made pursuant to the Santiago hearing are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Gironda, 758 F.2d 1201, 1217 (7th Cir.1985) (). We find abundant independent evidence in the trial record to establish the coconspirator relationship between Conn and Laurie and between Conn and Trunzo.
Hake's conversations with Judge Laurie and Officer Trunzo were properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Fed.R.Evid. The ruling was proper although Conn was not charged with conspiracy.
Absent a hearsay violation, Conn's claim that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated must fail. This circuit has adopted a per se rule that extrajudicial statements properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) do not violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses. E.g., id. at 1218; United States v. Chiavola, 744 F.2d 1271, 1276 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 987 n. 7 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 486, 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983); United States v. Papia, 560 F.2d 827, 836 n. 3 (7th Cir.1977). The court did not err in determining that the Confrontation Clause did not bar admission of the tape recorded conversations.
Moreover, there exist substantial indicia of reliability for the statements. Counsel stipulated to the accuracy of the tapes and transcripts. There seems to be no dispute that statements were made and money was exchanged. The only issue at trial was the legal significance of the conversations.
The next question is whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence on the defendant required its exclusion. The court's determination of admissibility under Fed.R.Evid. 403 is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pizarro, 756 F.2d 579, 584 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2686, 86 L.Ed.2d 703 (1985).
Evidence of Conn's guilt was overwhelming. Agent Ries testified in connection with the four cases he had in Cook County Circuit Court. He stated that he made six payments to Conn totalling $870 to fix cases. Hake testified that he paid Conn $740 on three occasions to influence the disposition of his cases. Twenty-seven tape recorded conversations of Conn's activities were played to the jury. Finally, there was documentary evidence that Conn falsified court records.
The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the challenged tape recordings was not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Fed.R.Evid. 403. We commend Judge Nordberg's care in fashioning appropriate cautionary instructions and we conclude that the evidence was properly admitted.
Conn contends that the government failed to establish federal court jurisdiction because he was not engaged in activities which affected interstate commerce. He asserts that "he did not act knowingly and deliberately with a criminal motive or purpose." He states that the monies received were mere gratuities and were not contingent upon the disposition of cases.
Under section 1962(c), it is the affairs of the enterprise, not the person charged with violating the section, that must affect interstate commerce. Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United Business Forms, Inc., 713 F.2d 1272, 1289 (7th Cir.1983). Moreover, the requirement is met if the enterprise affects interstate commerce through its activities, even if it is the racketeering activities that affect commerce. Id., see also United States v. Nerone, 563 F.2d 836, 852-55 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 1577, 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
The government established that Cook County Circuit Court purchased equipment and office supplies from companies located outside the State of Illinois. The interstate commerce requirement was met.
The Hobbs Act makes "whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects [interstate] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in [interstate] commerce" guilty of a crime. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951. The statute punishes the attempt along with the completed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. White
...interstate commerce, conspiracies engaging in that activity also substantially affect interstate commerce. See United States v. Conn, 769 F.2d 420, 424 (7th Cir.1985). Accordingly, the voluminous evidence of the underlying drug offenses also serves as evidence of the conspiracy's substantia......
-
Karel v. Kroner
...way affects interstate commerce through any of its activities, including the alleged racketeering activities. See United States v. Conn, 769 F.2d 420, 423-24 (7th Cir.1985). Plaintiff here meets that requirement simply by alleging that Doonan purchased one of the horses for the Illinois ent......
-
US v. Finley
...May 16, 1986) (transcript of proceedings at 7). 9 The government denies that the evidence is hearsay, citing United States v. Conn, 769 F.2d 420, 422 (7th Cir.1985). In the absence of any allegations by the defendant concerning the manner in which the evidence constituted hearsay, the Court......
-
U.S. v. Horak
...revenues derived from the contract were channeled up to Waste through WM-Ill. Blackwood, 768 F.2d at 138; see also United States v. Conn, 769 F.2d 420, 424-25 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Ambrose, 740 F.2d 505, 512 (7th Cir.1984) (such effect does not have to be monetary), cert. denied,......
-
Evidence at the electronic frontier: introducing e-mail at trial in commercial litigation.
...for truth of matters asserted but for fact that they were heard by victim and would have tended to induce fear); United States v. Conn, 769 F.2d 420, 422 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding that tape recordings of conversations between judge and FBI agents were admissible in racketeering trial over ju......