U.S. v. Strand, 74-4096
| Decision Date | 15 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-4096,74-4096 |
| Citation | 517 F.2d 711 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Carol STRAND, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert R. Case, Jr., Harlingen, Tex. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before CLARK, Associate Justice, * and GOLDBERG and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
The sole question involved on this appeal is the refusal of the District Judge to sever the trial of the appellant, Arthur Carol Strand, from that of his co-defendant, Alva William Allen. Strand and Allen were included in a ten-count indictment with ten other persons alleging a scheme to steal two trucks (a 1974 Kenworth and a 1964 Peterbilt) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and transport them to Edinburg, Texas, for the purpose of sale and eventual delivery into Mexico. While it appears, as the Government admits, that the activities of both Strand and Allen were peripheral to the principal illegal enterprise, each of them contributed an important part to its success. Strand furnished the shop in Oklahoma City where the Kenworth truck was painted, equipped with new mud flanges and lights, and stored, while waiting its transport to Edinburg. On the other end of the journey, Allen provided the storage in his garage near Edinburg for both the Kenworth and the Peterbilt trucks. For their part in the illegal enterprise Strand and Allen were paid $300 and $200, respectively, out of the overall payment of $6000 received for the two stolen trucks.
The indictment was drawn to cover all the various stages of the alleged conspiracy. Count One charged nine of the defendants, including appellant Strand, with conspiracy to transport the stolen Kenworth truck in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and § 2312. Count Two charged seven of the defendants, including appellant Strand with transporting the Kenworth truck in interstate commerce from Oklahoma City to Edinburg, knowing it to be a stolen vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Defendant Allen was first named in Count Three which charged eight of the defendants, but not appellant Strand, with conspiring to receive and conceal the Kenworth truck, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2313 and 371. Count Four charged Allen and two other defendants, Garcia and Kiefer, with receiving and concealing the Kenworth truck while it was moving in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313. Count Five charged defendant Kiefer alone with transporting the Kenworth truck in foreign commerce from Edinburg to Progreso, Tamaulipas, Mexico, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Count Six charged seven of the defendants, including appellant Strand, with conspiracy to transport the stolen Peterbilt truck in interstate commerce in violation of §§ 371 and 2312. Count Seven charged seven of the defendants, excluding both appellant Strand and defendant Allen, with transporting the Peterbilt truck interstate from Oklahoma City to Edinburg, knowing it to be a stolen vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Count Eight charged nine of the defendants, including defendant Allen but excluding appellant Strand, with conspiracy to receive and conceal the stolen Peterbilt truck, moving in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 2313. Count Nine charged three of the defendants, including Allen but excluding appellant Strand, with receiving and concealing the Peterbilt truck in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313; and the final count, Count Ten, charged defendant Kiefer alone with transporting the Peterbilt truck in foreign commerce from Edinburg to Progreso, knowing it to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312.
By the time of the trial, seven of the defendants had pleaded guilty on Count One; three had all the charges against them dismissed. Count Six, the count charging Strand and six other defendants of conspiracy to transport the stolen Peterbilt truck in interstate commerce was dismissed on the Government's motion. The guilty pleas and dismissals left only two conspirators for trial, appellant Strand and defendant Allen. Strand faced charges involving the Kenworth truck on Counts One and Two of the conspiracy indictment, while Allen faced charges involving the Kenworth truck on Counts Three and Four and charges involving the Peterbilt truck on Counts Eight and Nine. Only the dismissed Count Six had alleged any involvement by Strand with the Peterbilt truck. After the dismissal of Count Six, Strand moved for a severance under F.R.Cr.P. 14. The motion was denied and the case went to trial before a jury as to Strand and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. DePalma
...series of transactions alleged here are sufficiently interrelated and intertwined to justify a joint trial. See e. g. United States v. Strand, 517 F.2d 711 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 998, 96 S.Ct. 428, 46 L.Ed.2d 373 (1975); United States v. Bova, 493 F.2d 33 (5th Cir. 1974). It wou......
-
United States v. Tallant, Crim. A. No. 74-225A.
...where the series of transactions are sufficiently interrelated and intertwined, a joint trial would be permissible. United States v. Strand, 517 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1975). As a result, further consideration of misjoinder under Rule 8(b) is not Defendants do not argue that joinder in this cas......
-
U.S. v. Juarez
...Wasson, 5 Cir., 1978,568 F.2d 1214 at 1221-1224; United States v. Bynum, 5 Cir., 1978, 566 F.2d 914, 919-21, 928-29; United States v. Strand, 5 Cir., 1975, 517 F.2d 711, 714. Moreover, the trial court gave appropriate jury instructions designed to prevent any prejudice or confusion that mig......
-
U.S. v. Levine
...matrices, implicating different defendants at different times. United States v. Gentile, 495 F.2d at 630-31; Compare United States v. Strand, 517 F.2d 711, 713-14 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 998, 96 S.Ct. 428, 46 L.Ed.2d 373 (1975), with United States v. Marionneaux, 514 F.2d at When......