U.S. v. Harris, s. 82-5049

• Decision Date: 01 March 1983
• Docket Number: 82-5181 and 82-5157,82-5052,Nos. 82-5049,s. 82-5049
• Citation: 701 F.2d 1095
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Lester HARRIS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dennis WARREN, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Richard WARREN, Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard WARREN, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1095

701 F.2d 1095

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Lester HARRIS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dennis WARREN, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Richard WARREN, Appellee.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard WARREN, Appellant.

Nos. 82-5049, 82-5052, 82-5181 and 82-5157.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 14, 1983.

Decided March 1, 1983.

Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, N.C., for appellant John Lester harris.

Edwin R. Ivy, Jr., Orlando, Fla., for appellants Richard Warren and Dennis Warren.

Mildred M. Matesich, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Samuel T. Currin, U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C., Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter W. Barnett, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, WIDENER, Circuit Judge, and FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge.

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge:

In the prosecution of John Harris, Dennis Warren, and Richard Warren on various federal charges arising out of their management of a migrant labor farm in Wilson, North Carolina, the jury convicted Harris and Dennis Warren of conspiracy to violate the rights of certain laborers to be free from slavery, resulting in the death of one laborer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241. ¹ Richard Warren, however, although indicted in the same conspiracy count with Harris and Dennis Warren, was convicted only of the lesser included offense of conspiracy without death resulting, also a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241. All three were convicted of holding laborer Harvey Rutherford to involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2 and 1584. ² Harris and Dennis Warren were also convicted of holding laborer Craig Connors to involuntary servitude. ³

After sentence was imposed on Richard Warren, the district court granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, ruling that his conviction for a conspiracy not resulting in death was impermissibly inconsistent with the jury's finding, as to Harris and Dennis Warren, that the conspiracy had resulted in death.

With the exceptions noted below, defendants have appealed their convictions, ⁴ and the government has cross-appealed from the judgment of acquittal entered on Richard Warren's conspiracy count. We affirm all of the substantive convictions, 535 F.Supp. 1102, but we reverse Richard Warren's judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count and reinstate the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed thereon. We see no merit in defendant's contentions that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel.

I. Introduction

The prosecutions stemmed from the management of a crew of migrant farm workers who lived and worked on the farm of Cecil Williams and Cecil Williams, Jr., in Nash County, North Carolina, during the summer of 1981. Cecil Williams employed Dennis Warren to provide and supervise a crew of migrant laborers to harvest Williams' crops, including cucumbers, sweet potatoes and tobacco. The crops were harvested by hand. For the season May to October, Williams paid Dennis the sum of $72,000, out of which Warren paid the expenses of the harvesting operation. Dennis was assisted in running the crew by his brother Richard Warren, John Harris and a certain Halsey Norwood.

The government's evidence showed that many of the workers for Dennis Warren's camp were recruited by methods ranging from deception to kidnapping. In the camp, workers were charged $35.00 per week for their meals, and additional sums of $1.00 for a pack of cigarettes, $3.00 for a pint of wine and $1.25-$1.50 for beer. These costs were deducted from their wages and although the laborers were supposed to be paid every two weeks, the evidence was that they only received $5.00 each on payday.

The evidence also showed that workers were guarded at night and any who tried to flee were picked up and returned by Harris or others. There was proof of actual and threatened physical violence to prevent workers from leaving or to force them to work faster. A house, called the "jail," was used to confine workers who had tried to run away or for other punishment. Harris and Dennis Warren each carried a piece of rubber hose and beat laborers with them. Workers who complained of illness or injuries were denied medical assistance.

On September 13, 1981, Robert Anderson, a migrant worker from Philadelphia, died in a bus to which he had been taken after collapsing in the fields. Two autopsies established that the primary cause of death was heat stroke. His death and reports of civil rights violations at the farm precipitated an investigation of conditions at the camp by the FBI which ultimately ripened into these prosecutions.

We will describe other facts in the context of the contentions to which they relate.

II. Effective Assistance of Counsel

Defendants Dennis and Richard Warren were represented by an attorney who was a member of the law firm which also was counsel for Cecil Williams, who, together with his son, was not charged with any crime but had employed Dennis Warren. After defendants' indictment, the government filed a motion to request a Garcia hearing, ⁵ in order to inquire into a possible conflict of interest on the part of the defense lawyer. The motion alleged the fact that the lawyer was a member of the law firm which represented Cecil Williams, ⁶ and the government requested a hearing to determine if the Warrens had knowingly waived their right to independent counsel. ⁷ Unfortunately, due to a mechanical failure, no transcript was made of that hearing, nor was any written order entered. An agreed statement prepared by counsel to this appeal indicates that the Magistrate who decided the motion does not remember any separate inquiry into this possible conflict. Further, although the prosecutor recalls that the Magistrate found no need for independent counsel, defense counsel does not recollect whether this particular conflict was discussed or ruled upon. In any event, no change in representation occurred; the lawyer who was a member of the law firm representing Williams continued to represent the Warrens.

Defendants now contend that this conflict resulted in an adverse effect on the law firm's presentation of the Warrens' defense and hence violated their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. ⁸ First, the defendants claim that although counsel promised during opening argument to place Williams on the stand to testify that he often spoke to the workers and heard no complaints, Williams was never called by the defense. Defendants argue that the law firm, nervous that Williams might implicate himself in the day-to-day running of the farm, instead refused to call Williams as a defense witness and devoted the cross-examination of Williams to an attempt to distance Williams from any interaction with the laborers. Defendants suggest that this "change of heart" might have been prompted by one hearsay statement by a laborer, not admitted by the district court, which alleged that Williams had ordered Harris to "kick some butt" to get the work done, and by several statements by workers that they were "afraid" to go to Williams to complain. Thus, defendants argue that they were deprived of their key witness, especially damaging after his testimony had been promised during opening argument. Second, defendants contend that the conflict deprived them of a possible "I was only following orders" defense, which they argue could have been asserted in mitigation of either culpability or punishment.

The applicable legal standard, as set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), is that "[i]n order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." On the basis of the record as presently developed, we find neither actual conflict nor adverse effect.

First, the evidence adduced at trial simply did not indicate that Williams faced a significant risk of becoming implicated in the criminal conduct. The statements by laborers that they were afraid to go to Williams actually indicated that they were afraid that, if they complained to Williams and the defendants found out, the defendants would hurt them. Moreover, there simply is no evidence in the record (other than that one inadmissible statement) to indicate that Williams ever issued any orders or instructions to the defendants on how to manage the workers. ⁹ Therefore, we think that, on the present record, no actual conflict has been established.

Second, an examination of the record reveals that defense counsel did undertake vigorously to cross-examine Williams when he testified as a government witness as to his dealings with the laborers, and that it was actually the district court that limited this cross-examination, ruling that such questions would have to be put to Williams when later called by the defense. Further, it appears that the decision not to call Williams for the defense was part of a purposeful defense strategy, forcefully urged in closing argument, that the government had not made out its affirmative case. ¹⁰ Thus, we conclude that, on the present record, no showing has been made that defense counsel's performance was adversely affected. Defendants' Sixth Amendment claim must therefore be rejected. ¹¹

III. The Secs. 2 and 1584 Convictions

A. Holding Craig Connors to Involuntary Servitude

Although both Harris and Dennis Warren were convicted of holding laborer Craig Connors to involuntary servitude under 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2 and 1584, only Harris has appealed his conviction. He challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to convict him.

While we have never considered the question of what conduct amounts to a holding for involuntary servitude under Sec. 1584, we recently dealt with the definition...