U.S. v. Hildebrand
| Decision Date | 09 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-3959,73-3959 |
| Citation | 506 F.2d 406 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor F. HILDEBRAND and Kenneth L. Smith, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James M. Campbell, J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Robert V. Williams, Tampa, Fla., (Court-appointed), for Smith.
John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Claude H. Tison, D. Frank Winkles, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before RIVES, GEWIN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Hildebrand and Smith were found guilty by a jury and convicted on all twelve counts of an indictment charging them with wire and mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. 2, 1341, and 1343. They received three-year concurrent sentences on each count.
They first contend that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support their convictions. An examination of the record, however, belies their claims. Hildebrand and one McDevitt 1 patented the Electro Chef, a commercial cooking unit designed to heat food instantly. The unit consisted of an oven enclosing specially designed containers in which the food was heated. The containers resembled styrofoam cups with two metal strips attached for conducting an electrical current. The inventors claimed the entire unit could be placed on a counter for use in dispensing quick hot meals such as chili, macaroni, and stew.
Hildebrand, McDevitt and Smith embarked upon a business venture to sell franchise rights to the Electro Chef throughout several states in the South. Smith allegedly owned exclusive distribution rights, while Hildebrand and McDevitt were to receive a royalty on each Electro Chef manufactured. In reality, however, Smith issued bogus checks to Hildebrand and McDevitt to evidence his proprietary interest.
As 'pitch man' Smith placed advertisements in newspapers from Texas to Georgia seeking 'partners' in a 'proven distributorship program' with 'high profit potential.' Smith met with prospective investors in each city, demonstrated the attributes of the Electro Chef, and delivered his 'sales pitch.' In the course of these meetings Smith claimed wide experience in the quick food business and characterized Hildebrand as an electronics 'genius', ensconced in a well-stocked Florida laboratory.
After the demonstrations, investors signed a sales and distribution agreement giving them a share of the Electro Chef franchise within a particular state. They mailed cashier's checks or telegraphed money orders payable to Hildebrand and McDevitt in payment of their franchise rights. After deducting minimal expenses, Hildebrand, McDevitt and Smith split the funds three ways.
Following Smith's instructions, many investors rented and redecorated commercial space to house the deep dish cooking units. Smith's promises notwithstanding, they received no aid in establishing their merchandising operations. When it became apparent ovens and cups were not being shipped as agreed, the investors contacted Hildebrand. He placated them with continual promises to send the needed equipment. He assured them the ovens would gain Underwriters' Laboratories approval. When investors asked whether the cups would meet Food and Drug Administration standards, Hildebrand gave two conflicting responses: either that they would pass muster or that such approval was unnecessary. One disgruntled investor from a Houston, texas group visited the alleged seat of operations, only to find that Hildebrand's 'laboratory' consisted of a work bench in his garage. Another unhappy franchisee watched Smith, who had earlier claimed a proficiency at constructing 1800 cups per day, struggle unsuccessfully for some ten minutes to fashion even one appropriately designed container.
In the months following their initial contracts, the investors never received the cups or the ovens. The evidence presented revealed that Hildebrand, McDevitt, and Smith received a total of $20,100 for their efforts, while the victim-investors lost approximately $70,000. The evidence of a fraudulent scheme introduced at trial amply supports their convictions. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Appellants base their second contention on the government's alleged failure to comply with due process standards enunciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Brady compels the prosecution to disclose material evidence favorable to the accused. That principle has been expanded to include evidence useful for impeachment purposes. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1968), adhered to sub nom., Evans v. Dutton, 441 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1971).
On July 30, 1973 defense attorneys and the United States Attorney participated in a pre-trial Omnibus hearing at which they agreed to reciprocal discovery pursuant to Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P. The order required disclosure of all the government's documentary evidence by August 6, 1973, with supplementation as relevant evidence came into the government's possession between the time of conference and trial. On August 1 the government delivered thirty documents to the defense, all the prosecuting attorney had in their files.
More than a month following the Omnibus deadline Smith's counsel interviewed prospective government witnesses who showed him copies of documents they had allegedly given postal inspectors years before. The next Monday defense counsel telephoned the United States Attorney's office demanding production of the additional documents. Government counsel replied, 'We're xeroxing them now.' The documents government attorneys were reproducing, however, did not emanate from postal inspectors' files. Rather, they were obtained from various witness-investors in the course of the prosecution's interviews with the witnesses on the previous Saturday. 2
At any rate, defense attorneys were notified on Monday, September 10, that additional documents were available for their inspection. Smith's counsel obtained approximately one hundred new documents on Friday, while Hildebrand's attorney waited until Sunday. The delay from Monday to Friday in the case of Smith and from Monday to Sunday in Hildebrand's case is not attributable to the government in any respect. Trial began the next Monday morning, at which time both appellants filed motions to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to the government's alleged pre-trial derelictions.
The additional documents consisted of copies of contracts signed by investors in the Electro Chef distribution scheme, as well as some handwritten notes by Smith. The only features distinguishing the second set of contracts from those already in appellants' possession were the names, dates, and states which were written on the contract forms. The substance of the printed franchising agreements was identical in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. Nonetheless, appel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Crockett, 74-3923
...by Ms. Moore. Certainly the deposition did not contain material surprising or unknown to defense counsel. 11 Cf. United States v. Hildebrand, 5 Cir. 1975, 506 F.2d 406. Moreover, the sworn deposition is not a "statement" encompassed within the scope of the Jencks Act since it was not "made ......
-
Calley v. Callaway
...the principles of Brady do not apply unless the evidence is material to mitigation, exculpation or impeachment. United States v. Hildebrand, 5 Cir., 1974, 506 F.2d 406, 409. The materiality requirement of Brady and subsequent cases is important here, for not every piece of evidence potentia......
-
U.S. v. Ross
...to alter the quantum of proof in his favor. The extensiveness of the material which the Government did produce, United States v. Hildebrand, 5 Cir., 1974, 506 F.2d 406, 409, and the availability of the disputed material from other sources, including the defendant's own knowledge, must also ......
-
U.S. v. Gordon
...that question is whether the evidence was "crucial to a determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused", United States v. Hildebrand, 5 Cir., 1975, 506 F.2d 406. If the defendants had been on trial for the actual manufacture of methaqualone and none of their own product had been sei......