U.S. v. Micciche, s. 75--1220
| Decision Date | 30 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 75--1220,75--1224,75--1223,75--1221,s. 75--1220 |
| Citation | 525 F.2d 544 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph MICCICHE, Sr., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
O. W. Pete Wiggins, Sr., Little Rock, Ark., for Micciche and Jarnigan.
H. Allan Dishongh, Little Rock, Ark., for Ward and Slingerland.
John Forster, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Sam Perrone, Asst. U.S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
The four appellants challenge their conviction by a jury of conspiring to knowingly and fraudulently transfer and conceal assets in contemplation of a bankruptcy proceeding and with intent to defeat the bankruptcy law. 18 U.S.C. § 152. The sole issue raised is sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the convictions of appellants Frank Douglas Ward and Johnnie Slingerland, but reverse those of Paul Jarnigan and Joseph Micciche, Sr.
There was clearly sufficient evidence to support the convictions of Ward and Slingerland. Government witness-William Wilson testified that he, Ward, and Slingerland expressly agreed to conduct a scheme to defraud creditors which he termed a 'scam.' The basic idea of the 'scam' was to establish good credit, order a large inventory, dispose of that inventory for whatever it would bring, and then disappear.
This scheme was carried out essentially as planned. A furniture store was established in December of 1973, under the name of Factory Surplus and Freight Sales (FSFS). Several branch stores were also established. FSFS did a rapidly increasing business in inexpensive furniture sold at very low prices. In April of 1974, a huge inventory began to arrive. Also, in mid-April, the company that had been financing many of FSFS' credit sales severely curtailed the amount of recourse paper it would accept.
Much of this inventory was stored in various places rented on a short-term basis. This inventory was then trucked to auction houses throughout the South and sold at prices substantially below wholesale. Many trucks were rented for this purpose. Wilson testified that one truck was purchased and that title was placed in Ward to conceal it from any bankruptcy proceedings.
By April 30, 1974, the FSFS store was completely emptied of furniture. On that day defendant-Slingerland, the nominal proprietor of FSFS, reported to city police that he had been robbed of $68,000 in cash. Some time prior to this alleged robbery, witness-Wilson told another witness that such a robbery would be claimed in order to account for the missing assets of FSFS. Although defendant-Slingerland reported the robbery to the police, he never provided a statement of the circumstances to them as requested. He explained at trial that this was because he did not care for the attitude of the police. The record indicates that the police seemed skeptical of his robbery report.
A petition of creditors for involuntary bankruptcy was filed against Wilson, Slingerland, and FSFS on May 10, 1974, and a receiver was appointed. On June 27, 1974, an injunction was issued against defendants-Ward, Micciche, and Jarnigan forbidding them to dispose of any assets of FSFS. It is not clear when, if ever, the various defendants learned of these proceedings prior to the time criminal charges were brought against them. 1
With respect to Ward and Slingerland, the testimony of witness-Wilson precludes any innocent interpretation of these facts. While it is true that Wilson's character was shown to be less that spotless, it is well settled that 'a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a codefendant or accomplice.' United States v. Guy, 456 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S.Ct. 136, 34 L.Ed.2d 153 (1972); Wood v. United States, 361 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1966). Further, Wilson's testimony was substantially corroborated. For example, the record shows that Wilson knew that Slingerland was planning a phony robbery some time prior to its occurrence. Other evidence in the record also serves to corroborate this direct testimony of an express conspiracy intended to defraud creditors and frustrate the bankruptcy laws.
The situation is quite different with respect to defendants-Jarnigan and Micciche. They were salesmen working for FSFS. Jarnigan also managed a branch of FSFS for a short time. Both were apparently extremely effective and successful as salesmen.
Although the Government concedes that Jarnigan and Micciche were nor a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Ross
... ... to agree, at least insofar as its practices are represented by the two individual cases before us ... Nonetheless, we recognize that the issue is difficult and requires careful ... ...
-
Williams v. Ward
... ... ' answer to Williams' motion for summary judgment, the court stated that the "issue before us ... is not whether the plaintiff is entitled to a 'sanitized' file devoid of adverse information, ... ...
-
Cicero v. Olgiati
... ... ' claims would be to shirk responsibility "to our constitutional heritage, which obligates us to vindicate 410 F. Supp. 1092 federal rights." McRedmond v. Wilson, supra, at 759, n. 1 ... ...
-
Zurak v. Regan
... ... Our eagerness to correct asserted wrongs should not blind us to the fact that when we create a right, we also lay the groundwork for a remedy. One would expect ... ...