U.S. v. Rankin
Decision Date | 24 April 1989 |
Docket Number | Nos. 88-1639,s. 88-1639 |
Citation | 870 F.2d 109 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. RANKIN, Kevin. UNITED STATES of America, v. RANKIN, John A. UNITED STATES of America, v. FARRELL, Maureen. to 88-1641. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., U.S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief of Appeals, Bucky P. Mansuy (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Thomas Colas Carroll (argued), Carroll & Carroll, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Maureen Farrell and John A. Rankin.
Ben W. Joseph, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Kevin Rankin.
Before SEITZ, STAPLETON, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal seeks review of an order of the district court dismissing six counts of a ten-count indictment. The government contends that the district court erred in dismissing four of these counts: Counts 3, 6, and 9, charging the defendants with obstructing the due administration of justice, and Count 10, charging the defendants with conspiring to defraud the United States. We agree and reverse.
On September 19, 1983, defendant Kevin Rankin and 13 other individuals were indicted and charged with conspiracies to distribute large quantities of heroin, cocaine, quaaludes, and marijuana as well as with unlawful use of a communication facility. After a jury trial, Rankin was convicted on all counts and was sentenced by Judge Hannum to the maximum term of 54 years in prison. Rankin appealed, arguing that the district court had erred in not granting him a continuance in order to allow counsel of his choice to participate in the trial. This court subsequently vacated Rankin's conviction on that ground and remanded the case for a new trial.
Prior to the commencement of the second trial, Rankin filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 144 & 455(a) requesting that Judge Hannum be recused from presiding over the second trial. In support of this motion, Rankin and appellees John Rankin, and Maureen Farrell, Kevin Rankin's brother and sister respectively, filed affidavits. These affidavits stated inter alia, that during the first trial Judge Hannum chased Kevin Rankin around parts of the courtroom, as well as poked, shoved, and struck him, and interrupted, belittled, and humiliated defense witnesses.
Judge Hannum denied Rankin's motion pursuant to Section 455(a) and partially granted his motion pursuant to Section 144. Judge Hannum addressed the Section 455(a) aspect of Rankin's motion first and denied it on the ground that a reasonable person looking at the available information would conclude that the judge did not assault the defendant or chase him around the courtroom. 1 The court then considered the Section 144 motion. Although the court held that the affidavit was timely filed and was legally sufficient under Section 144, it found that the section's language precluded the court from examining the veracity of the specific factual allegations contained in the defendant's affidavit. Consequently, the court concluded that the factual allegations in Rankin's affidavit, attesting to Judge Hannum's assaults on Rankin, were legally sufficient under Section 144 to prevent that court from proceeding further in the case until another judge had ascertained their veracity. As a result, the remaining aspects of the motion pertaining to Section 144 were referred to the Chief Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Chief Judge Fullam, however, stating that he was bound by statute and Supreme Court precedent to accept Rankin's factual allegations as true, granted Rankin's motion without a hearing and reassigned his second trial to Judge Cahn.
The second trial commenced on October 20, 1986, and following a guilty verdict on three counts of unlawful use of a communications facility, Rankin was sentenced to ten years in prison. Subsequently, following a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, Rankin's sentence was reduced by Judge Cahn to 40 months, or time served.
On April 13, 1988, Rankin, John Rankin, and Maureen Farrell ("the defendants") were named in an indictment charging perjury arising out of statements made in their affidavits filed in support of Kevin Rankin's motion to recuse Judge Hannum. A superceding indictment was filed on May 11, 1988. Counts 3, 6, and 9 of the superceding indictment charged Kevin Rankin, John Rankin, and Maureen Farrell, respectively, with endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 (1982) and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 (1982) ( ). Count 10 charged the defendants with conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful function of a district court through making false and deceitful representations and statements. The indictment alleged that the object of the conspiracy was to cause the issuance of a judicial order disqualifying Judge Hannum from presiding over further proceedings in U.S. v. Kevin Rankin and directing that the case be assigned to a different judge. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the three defendants were charged with signing their respective affidavits and the attachment of these affidavits to Kevin Rankin's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 144 & 455(a).
The defendants filed several pre-trial motions requesting either that several of the counts be dismissed or that the indictment as a whole be dismissed. The district court, in a July 26, 1988 order, granted the motions to dismiss counts 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Counts 1 and 7, charging Kevin Rankin and Maureen Farrell with perjury, were dismissed without prejudice on the ground that the alleged perjurious acts (i.e., the signing of false affidavits) occurred in New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accordingly lacked venue. Counts 3, 6, and 9, charging obstruction of justice, were dismissed because the court concluded that they did not state an offense. Finally, Count 10 was dismissed because the district court concluded that it did not contain a "plain, concise and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the offense" purported to be charged.
The texts of the three obstruction of justice counts, 3, 6, and 9, are essentially the same except for the name of the alleged perpetrator of the offense. Count 3 is illustrative:
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 of Count One are incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice and did aid, abet, procure, counsel, induce, and willfully cause such an endeavor by submitting and filing KEVIN RANKIN'S Affidavit, which KEVIN RANKIN then well knew contained false allegations as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Count One.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1503 and 2.
Appendix at 18. The incorporated language from Count One refers to the background of the case and the specific portions of Kevin Rankin's affidavit which are alleged to be false.
Defendants insist that, as a matter of law, the giving of false testimony, by affidavit or otherwise, cannot alone constitute obstruction of justice in violation of Sec. 1503. They further urge that an indictment must allege the particular manner in which the defendants' conduct obstructed the due administration of justice. In the defendants' view, since Counts 3, 6, and 9 of the indictment allege nothing more specific about the obstruction than that it involved the filing of false affidavits, the district court's dismissal of these counts must be sustained.
We agree that the government must prove something more than the commission of an act of perjury in order to secure a conviction for obstruction of justice. United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214 (6th Cir.1969); United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825, 100 S.Ct. 48, 62 L.Ed.2d 32 (1979). If it were otherwise, every perjury violation would be an obstruction of justice and it is most unlikely that Congress intended such a result. As Justice Black said in In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 227-228, 66 S.Ct. 78, 79-80, 90 L.Ed. 30 (1945):
All perjured relevant testimony is at war with justice, since it may produce a judgment not resting on truth. Therefore, it cannot be denied that it tends to defeat the sole ultimate objective of a trial. It need not necessarily, however, obstruct or halt the judicial process. For the function of a trial is to sift the truth from a mass of contradictory evidence, and to do so the fact-finding tribunal must hear both truthful and false witnesses.
However, we decline the parties' invitation to determine at this point how much more than a perjurious act the government must prove to secure a conviction for obstruction of justice. Resolution of that issue must await presentation of the government's evidence. The only issue before us in this appeal is the sufficiency of the indictment and it will suffice for present purposes to determine whether Counts 3, 6, and 9 each constitute "a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting" an obstruction of justice and, accordingly, whether they are in compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) and Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
An indictment is generally deemed sufficient if it: 1) "contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged," 2) "sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet," and 3) allows the defendant to "show[ ] with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction" in the event of a subsequent prosecution. Russell v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Christie
......Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 112 (3d Cir.1989)); see also United States v. Dentler, 492 F.3d 306, 309 (5th ......
-
United States v. Coburn
...... (quoting United States v. Rankin , 870 F.2d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1989) ). 3 A. Schwartz Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 & 4 Defendant ...439 F.Supp.3d 376 The point is that the alternative jurisdictional provision leaves us with the same question regarding the unit of prosecution: Is each "act outside the United States" ......
-
In re Grand Jury
...... that the Government, consistent with its representations [705 F.3d 149] to us, will not seek to hold the law firms in contempt in that event. And no doubt the District Court ...McKee, 506 F.3d 225, 238 (3d Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 113 (3d Cir.1989)). 23. ABC Corp. argues that the District Court ......
-
US v. Cannistraro
...... United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 111 (3d Cir.1989); see also In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 228, 66 S.Ct. 78, 80, 90 L.Ed. 30 (1945) (reversing punishment for ......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...the government must allege in the indictment the three elements of obstruction of justice under [section] 1503); United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1989) ("It is ... well established that no greater specificity than the statutory language is required so long as there is suf......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...the government must allege in the indictment the three elements of obstruction of justice under [section] 1503); United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1989) ("It is ... well established that no greater specificity than the statutory language is required so long as there is suf......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...the government must allege in the indictment the three elements of obstruction of justice under [section] 1503); United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1989) ("It is ... well established that no greater specificity than the statutory language is required so long as there is suf......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...the government must allege in the indictment the three elements of obstruction of justice under [section] 1503); United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1989) ("It is ... well established that no greater specificity than the statutory language is required so long as there is suf......