U.S. v. Griffith, s. 82-1485
Decision Date | 27 February 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. 82-1485,82-1495 and 82-1496,s. 82-1485 |
Citation | 756 F.2d 1244 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy GRIFFITH (82-1485), Gerald L. McKay (82-1495), Frank Ross Reynolds, III (82-1496), Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
David Steingold (argued), Detroit, Mich., for Roy Griffith.
Michael S. Friedman (argued), Troy, Mich., for Gerald L. McKay.
Richard Paul Zipser (argued), Southfield, Mich., for Frank Ross Reynolds, III.
Leonard R. Gilman, U.S. Atty., Michael C. Leibson, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Detroit, Mich., for the U.S.
Before KEITH, MARTIN and CONTIE, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Griffith, McKay, and Reynolds appeal their convictions for activities related to a marijuana distribution scheme. All three defendants were convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848. Reynolds and McKay were convicted of conspiring to obstruct the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371. Reynolds was convicted of three counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201, and McKay was convicted of two counts of tax evasion. The defendants challenge their convictions because of inflammatory remarks made by the prosecutor to the grand jury, the petit jury's use of a dictionary to define an important legal term during deliberations, and a comment on Reynolds' failure to testify made by counsel for a codefendant. 1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions of all defendants on all counts.
The evidence at trial showed that Reynolds and Griffith were the primary organizers in a marijuana distribution network involving tons of marijuana and millions of dollars. Reynolds arranged for individuals to transport the marijuana from Florida and elsewhere to Michigan, where Griffith was in charge of distribution. Reynolds usually paid these individuals, although on occasion Griffith would pay them. Much of the marijuana was transported in a mobile home which had been purchased by Reynolds and in a van which had been bought and modified at Reynolds' direction. Reynolds also gave the drivers directions on where to take the marijuana and whom to contact upon arrival in Michigan.
Griffith and Reynolds provided money to Patrick Bolerjack to buy a "stash" house from which Bolerjack distributed marijuana to individuals approved by Griffith and Reynolds. Griffith and Reynolds owned the marijuana, set the selling price, and kept records of the sales. Griffith and Reynolds also gave marijuana to individuals to sell on a consignment basis.
McKay was a middleman in the distribution chain. Griffith supplied marijuana to McKay, who then provided marijuana to individuals who sold it on a consignment basis. McKay set the price for the sales and directed certain persons to perform tasks for him. These tasks included transporting marijuana, loading and unloading marijuana, carrying marijuana to be weighed, weighing and storing marijuana, and transporting, counting, and laundering money.
Defendants' first challenge to their convictions is based on comments made by Assistant United States Attorney Michael Leibson to the grand jury that returned the indictments on the 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848 charges. Although the comments made by Leibson related only to Reynolds, McKay and Griffith claim that Leibson's inappropriate remarks also reflected on them because they had been characterized as Reynolds' "partners" throughout the grand jury proceedings.
Some background is necessary to a full understanding of the content and effect of Leibson's remarks. The grand jury returned indictments against Reynolds and twenty-one other individuals. From its inception, the grand jury's investigation focused on Reynolds as a possible violator of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848. During the course of the investigation, Reynolds was indicted for obstructing the section 848 grand jury. On October 3, 1981, nearly eleven months prior to the presentment of the indictments on August 28, 1982, Leibson made the following remarks to the grand jury investigating the section 848 violations:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Talbot
...is a longstanding or common abuse in the district and that he has been prejudiced by the abusive actions. See United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1249 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 837, 106 S.Ct. 114, 88 L.Ed.2d 93 (1985). This circuit has also consistently concluded that alleged......
-
US v. Williams-Davis
...at 20; Garnett Aff. ¶ 14. A jury's unauthorized use of a dictionary is error, but it is not prejudicial per se. See United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1251 (6th Cir.) (citing United States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839, 866 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 148, 62 L.Ed.2d ......
-
U.S. v. Kilpatrick
...604 F.2d 807, 817 (3rd Cir.1979) ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3294, 92 L.Ed.2d 709 (1986). Contra United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1249 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 114, 88 L.Ed.2d 93 (1985); United States v. McKenzie, 678 F.2d 629, 631 (5th Cir.)......
-
US v. Lopez, CR-89-0687-MHP.
...government misconduct, on the theory that such widespread misconduct increases the threat to judicial integrity. United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1249 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 837, 106 S.Ct. 114, 88 L.Ed.2d 93 (1985) (court may not order dismissal under its supervisor......
-
Trials
...favorable inference from client’s testimony without drawing adverse inference from defendant’s failure to testify); U.S. v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1252-53 (6th Cir. 1985) (no 5th Amendment violation when codefendant’s counsel’s comment on defendant’s failure to testify did not imply defe......
-
Law Clerks Gone Wild
...decision), 1988 WL 138963 (6th Cir. Dec. 28, 1988). 166. Id. at *2-*3. 167. Id. at *3. 168. Id. 169. Id. 170. Id. at *4. 171. Id. 172. 756 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir. 1985). 173. Id. at 1250. 174. Id. 175. Id. at 1250-51. 176. Id. at 1251. 177. Id. at 1252. 178. 956 F.2d 1027 (11th Cir. 1992). 179.......
-
Conformity in Confusion: Applying a Common Analysis to Wikipedia-based Jury Misconduct
...v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 258 n.17 (1st Cir. 1990)). 34. Id. at 288. 35. See cases cited supra note 31. 36. United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1252 (6th Cir. 1985). 37. See Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 289 (explaining that the court must "assess the magnitude of the event and the extent of t......