U.S. v. Ramsey, 82-1120

• Decision Date: 20 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-1120,82-1120
• Citation: 726 F.2d 601
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Leon RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 601

726 F.2d 601

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Leon RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-1120.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 20, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Feb 21, 1984.

James E. Edmondson, Muskogee, Okl., for defendant-appellant.

Gary L. Richardson, U.S. Atty., Muskogee, Mich. (Mark F. Green, Asst. U.S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., with him on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BARRETT, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

LOGAN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Cecil Leon Ramsey appeals his conviction for conspiring to damage and destroy a building by means of an explosive, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, and for destroying the building, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 844(i) and 2.

The issues on appeal are (1) whether, under the circumstances of this case, gasoline constitutes an explosive within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(j); (2) whether the district court inadequately investigated suspected jury bias; and (3) whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

The defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(i), which then proscribed destroying, "by means of an explosive," ¹ any building in interstate commerce. Section 844(j) defines "explosive," in pertinent part, as

"any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion."

In the instant case, witness Floyd Jackson testified that the defendant hired him to break into and destroy a building occupied by Stone's Grocery Store in Wagoner County, Oklahoma, that the defendant instructed Jackson to break in the following night around midnight, and that the defendant suggested Jackson use gasoline to destroy the store. On the following night, Jackson, Tommy Rockwell, and Randall Morgan broke into the building and poured gasoline throughout it. The gasoline somehow ignited before they intended, destroying the store. Thus, the first issue we confront is whether gasoline spread throughout a building and ignited in this fashion constitutes an explosive within the meaning of section 844(j).

The defendant contends that gasoline constitutes an explosive within the meaning of section 844(j) only when the gasoline is placed in a container and ignited with a special incendiary device. He thus attempts to distinguish United States v. Poulos, 667 F.2d 939 (10th Cir.1982), in which we held that gasoline constitutes an explosive at least under some circumstances. More recently, however, in United States v. Bunney, 705 F.2d 378 (10th Cir.1983), we held that gasoline poured into a room and ignited by a cigarette or matches constitutes an explosive as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(j). We do not perceive any characteristic distinguishing the case at bar from Bunney. We therefore conclude that the use of gasoline in the instant case constituted the use of an explosive within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(j).

The defendant's next contention is that the district court inadequately investigated alleged jury impropriety. The trial judge alone conducted voir dire. On the second day of trial, defense counsel heard and reported to the judge a rumor that juror Darlene Factor was the sister-in-law of a deputy sheriff or a member of the Wewoka, Oklahoma Police Department. The trial judge deferred action pending substantiation of the rumor. Later that day, a local sheriff told the government's attorney that juror Factor's brother-in-law was a member of the Wewoka Police Department. After learning this information, the defendant's attorneys several times requested permission to interview the juror. Each time the trial court deferred ruling on the request. However, after the close of evidence, but prior to any jury deliberations, the trial judge offered to question juror Factor in chambers regarding her relationship to any law enforcement personnel. He also raised the possibility of replacing her with an alternate if his interview with her should reveal that she was in fact related to a law enforcement officer. The defense counsel elected to proceed without the interview of the juror. However, after the jury rendered its verdict, the defendant moved for permission to interview the jury, which the court denied.

The defendant first contends that the trial court's voir dire was inadequate to explore the possibility of jury bias. The scope and depth of inquiry on voir dire are within the discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Hopkinson, 631 F.2d 665, 667 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 969, 101 S.Ct. 1489, 67 L.Ed.2d 620 (1980). In the instant case, the trial judge asked the prospective jurors: "Are you or anyone in your immediate family connected with law enforcement"? In response, one juror disclosed that she had an uncle who was a highway patrolman, and another revealed that he had been a special deputy sheriff. Furthermore, the trial judge twice asked counsel whether they wished the judge to ask any other questions on voir dire, and they responded that they did not. In light of the clarity of the trial judge's specific question, the jurors' apparent understanding of it, and the defense counsel's failure to suggest additional questions, we conclude that the trial judge's voir dire was adequate to explore the possibility that prospective jurors were related to law enforcement personnel. Accordingly, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in its conduct of voir dire.

The defendant also contends that the district court erred in denying the defendant's request to interview the jurors after the trial. Alternatively, the defendant argues that the trial court should have conducted its own post-verdict inquiry into the alleged failure of Darlene Factor to answer truthfully questions posed on voir dire. When a party's suggestion that a jury is biased is not frivolous, the district court ordinarily should undertake an adequate inquiry into the questions of whether the bias actually existed and whether it was prejudicial. United States v. Corbin, 590 F.2d 398, 400 (1st Cir.1979). See Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954); United States v. Thomas, 463 F.2d 1061, 1063 (7th Cir.1972). When the party is aware of the alleged misconduct during the trial, however, he or she may not raise the issue for the first time after trial. United States v. Carter, 433 F.2d 874, 876 (10th Cir.1970). See also United States v. Dean, 667 F.2d 729, 733-34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006, 102 S.Ct. 2296, 73 L.Ed.2d 1300 (1982). In the case at bar, the trial judge offered to interview juror Factor before jury deliberations. Presumably, this inquiry would have revealed whether she was related to a police officer and whether that relationship might be prejudicial to the defendant. The defense attorneys, however, declined the district judge's offer. Under these circumstances, we hold that the defendant waived his right to prove the alleged misconduct. "A litigant can not be permitted to speculate on the result of the jurors' misconduct." United States v. Kansas City, Mo., 157 F.2d 459, 461 (8th Cir.1946).

Finally, the defendant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence of perjury of the government's principal witness, Floyd Jackson. Jackson had testified at trial that the defendant hired him to destroy Stone's Corner Grocery, but after trial Jackson executed an affidavit recanting his trial testimony, stating that the defendant had nothing to do with the destruction of the building. The affidavit states that Jackson burned down the store because the defendant owed him money. The affidavit was corroborated by another affidavit from Jackson's wife. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial without a hearing and without making any findings of fact.

The requirements for granting a new trial on the basis of recanted testimony are clear:

"The newly discovered evidence must be more than impeaching or cumulative; it must be material to the issues involved; it must be such as would probably produce an acquittal; and a new trial is not warranted by evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at trial."

United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 403 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836, 98 S.Ct. 124, 54 L.Ed.2d 97 (1977). Moreover, we will reverse the trial court's decision to deny a new trial only for a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Steel, 458 F.2d 1164, 1166-67 (10th Cir.1972).

The recantation here is not merely impeaching or cumulative. When a witness recants his testimony, presumably he will testify as to the new version at a new trial. Thus, the recantation is substantial evidence. Lindsey v. United States, 368 F.2d 633, 636 (9th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1025, 87 S.Ct. 1383, 18 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967) (dictum); 8A Moore's Federal Practice Sec. 33.05 (1983). The government does not seriously dispute the materiality of Jackson's recantation. Although his trial testimony was corroborated in small part by the testimony of coconspirator Randall Johnson, Jackson was clearly the government's chief witness as to the defendant's involvement in the conspiracy. Jackson was the only conspirator who allegedly spoke with or received money from the defendant; he was the only conspirator who knew the defendant by name. While the defendant's counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine and to impeach Jackson at trial, it is unrealistic to assume that the defense attorneys could have elicited the recantation at trial. Thus, the defendant, exercising reasonable diligence, could not have...