U.S. v. Joseph, 75-1187

• Decision Date: 14 June 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-1187,75-1187
• Citation: 533 F.2d 282
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry JOSEPH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 282

533 F.2d 282

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry JOSEPH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-1187.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 1976.

John Volz, Federal Public Defender (Crt. Apptd. not Under Act), Richard T. Simmons, Jr., Asst. Federal Public Defender, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., George R. Simno, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, TUTTLE and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

RONEY, Circuit Judge:

The defendant, Jerry Joseph, was convicted on two counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a). On appeal Joseph presents five points for review:

(1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction;

(2) that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses;

(3) that his motion for a mistrial should have been granted because of prejudicial prosecutorial remarks to the jury during closing argument;

(4) that he was denied due process because of the nature of the Government's undercover operation which led to his arrest; and

(5) that requested evidence concerning the nature of two informants' oral agreement with the Government was withheld in violation of the principles of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

We find that none of these points warrants reversal.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Joseph's arrest occurred at the conclusion of a six month investigation which resulted in over one hundred controlled heroin purchases involving sixty-two individuals. The defendant was arrested and convicted for making two separate sales of heroin to undercover detective Gail Roberson during April 1974. Officer Roberson testified that on each occasion she informed Joseph how much heroin she wanted to buy, gave him the purchase price, waited for him to return with the drug, and received the heroin from the defendant.

Working with Officer Roberson in these operations were undercover detective James Lewis, disguised as a cab driver, and two informants. Although Officer Lewis could not actually see the heroin purchases, he corroborated the testimony of his partner as to the events leading up to the sales, including the initial meeting of the defendant and Officer Roberson. The informants introduced the undercover officer to defendant. Not called by the Government but by the defense, both informants corroborated Officer Roberson's account of the transactions.

Joseph denied having ever sold narcotics to anyone. The defense's theory of the case was that Officer Roberson did not purchase the heroin from Joseph, but received the drugs from the informants who obtained the narcotics from sources other than the defendant and then falsely gave Roberson the defendant's name as the seller.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence the test is whether, taking the view most favorable to the Government, a reasonably-minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as adequate and sufficient to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704 (1942); United States v. Warner, 441 F.2d 821, 825 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 829, 92 S.Ct. 65, 30 L.Ed.2d 58 (1971). Defense counsel conducted a vigorous cross-examination of the police officers and the informants, who were called by the defense as adverse witnesses. The jury heard the testimony of all these witnesses and determined what credibility should be placed on each. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonably-minded jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph did in fact make the two alleged sales of heroin.

Right to Compulsory Process

In order to support its theory that the informants made the purchases, not Officer Roberson, the defense attempted to subpoena as a witness a person who previously had pled guilty to a sale of heroin in an entirely unrelated matter arising out of the same Government investigation. A written offer of proof stated the witness would testify that, at the F.R.Crim.P., Rule 11 hearing to establish a factual basis for the witness' plea,

Detective Roberson testified that on March 11, 1974, I sold heroin to her. At this time I informed the Judge that although I had made the sale on the date in question, I had transferred the heroin to (the informant), not Detective Roberson.

The defense contends this testimony would show a method of operation which would impeach the credibility of Officer Roberson, the chief prosecution witness. The district court judge refused to grant defendant's request to call the witness at Government expense because he considered her proffered testimony irrelevant.

The right of a criminal defendant to call witnesses at Government expense is not absolute. Although a trial court must grant a subpoena if a defendant alleges facts to be within the witnesses' knowledge which, if true, would be relevant to an issue in the case, the trial court, nevertheless, still possesses broad discretion in this area. United States v. Joyner, 494 F.2d 501, 506-507 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 995, 95 S.Ct. 308, 42 L.Ed.2d 268 (1974). In exercising this discretion the trial judge should "weigh numerous factors, including materiality relevancy, and competency, in deciding whether to grant the request for a subpoena." United States v. Romano, 482 F.2d 1183, 1195 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1129, 94 S.Ct. 866, 38 L.Ed.2d 753 (1974). We do not find that the judge abused the broad discretion afforded him in denying the motion to produce this witness at Government expense under the circumstances of this case.

The Prosecutor's Remarks

During the defense's closing remarks to the jury, counsel emphasized that the Government only wanted the jury to see and hear the two narcotic agents and that it had attempted to minimize the role of the two informants. In response to this comment, the prosecutor made certain improper statements which, the defendant contends, warrants a new trial. According to defendant, the thrust of these comments was to inflame the jury into an unfounded concern over the safety of the two testifying informants and raised the inference that if Joseph was found not guilty, he would have both motive and opportunity to kill the informants. The judge sustained objections to these comments but denied a motion for mistrial. The jury was strongly cautioned by the judge to disregard these statements. Defendant claims, however, that the prejudice engendered in the jury could not be eliminated by cautionary instructions. We disagree. Placed in proper context, it is apparent that the prosecutor's statement that drug addicts might attempt to kill the informants did not directly refer to the defendant.

We note, however, that our affirmance should in no way be construed as condoning the actions of the Government prosecutor. The statements were error. They should not have been made and went beyond the proper role that a prosecutor should adhere to in closing arguments. But in placing this error in its proper context, we must look to see the harm suffered by the defendant. In the circumstances of this case, we find the harm to be nonprejudicial and one which had no substantial effect on the jury's verdict. An otherwise valid conviction should not be overturned where there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86, 84 S.Ct. 229, 230, 11 L.Ed.2d 171, 173 (1963). Here, reversal is avoided by the strong case of guilt that was presented against defendant. We agree with the statement in United States v. Burks, 508 F.2d 672 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1012, 95 S.Ct. 2418, 44 L.Ed.2d 681 (1975), that

Viewing the record as a whole, including those portions of the prosecutor's argument to which objection was made, in the context of a hotly contested trial and in light of the cautionary instructions given by the trial court, we are convinced that no reversible error was committed. . . . Considering the totality of all the circumstances, it is our conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that even if the argument was improper it constituted no more than harmless error. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial not a perfect one.

Id. at 673 quoting United States v. Rhoden, 453 F.2d 598, 600 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 2050, 32 L.Ed.2d 334 (1972).

The Undercover Operation

Joseph argues that he was denied due process because of the nature of the Government's undercover operations. He claims that the use of paid informants, at least one of whom was financing his own habit with the money paid by the Government, tends to produce the type of "frame-up" which this Court condemned in Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1962). But in Williamson the Government paid a contingent fee to an informant for producing evidence against a particular named defendant. Here, however, the informants were paid for setting up drug purchases by the undercover agents with no particular person as the target of the buying efforts. Agents Roberson and Lewis went with the two informants and attempted to buy from whomever might be found who would enter into a transaction. This factor takes this case outside the ambit of the Williamson doctrine. See United States v. Oquendo, 505 F.2d 1307, 1310 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Jenkins,480 F.2d 1198, 1199-1200 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 256, 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973).

The Informants' Agreement with the Government

Finally, Joseph contends that the prosecution improperly withheld certain evidence he requested concerning the nature of the informants' agreement with the Government in violation of the principles established in Brady v. Maryland, ...