U.S. v. Tarantino
| Citation | 269 U.S.App.D.C. 398,846 F.2d 1384 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 85-5808,s. 85-5808 |
| Parties | , 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 164 UNITED STATES of America v. John C. TARANTINO, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Robert H. BURNS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Fred B. BLACK, Jr., Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Wilfred Samuel BELL, a/k/a Sam Bell, Appellant. to 85-5810, 85-5846. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Howard F. Cerny, New York City, for appellant Tarantino.
Robert H. Burns, pro se.
L. Barrett Boss (appointed by this court), with whom Henry W. Asbill, Washington, D.C., (also appointed by this court) was on brief, for appellant Bell.
Loren Kieve (appointed by this court), with whom Jo Anne Swindler, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for appellant Black. Thomas R. Dyson, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellant Black.
Charles E. Ambrose, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Michael W. Farrell, Paul L. Knight and Roger M. Adelman, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I VARIANCE: SINGLE VERSUS MULTIPLE 1391
CONSPIRACIES
A. Permissible Variance..................... 1392
B. Establishing a Single Conspiracy......... 1392
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence of a......... 1393
Single Conspiracy
1. Burns................................. 1394
2. Black................................. 1395
3. Tarantino............................. 1397
4. Bell.................................. 1398
II. SEVERANCE.................................... 1398
A. Disparity in Evidence.................... 1398
B. Conflicting Defense Theories............. 1399
III. JURY INSTRUCTIONS............................ 1400
A. Single Versus Multiple Conspiracies...... 1400
B. The Travel Act........................... 1401
C. The Cash Transaction Reports............. 1403
Instruction
D. The Missing Witness Instruction.......... 1404
E. Strickland's Guilty Plea................. 1404
IV. RESTRICTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION............ 1405
A. Strickland's Plan to Murder Kupits....... 1405
B. Strickland's Benefits from the........... 1407
Witness Protection Program
C. Strickland's Payment of Attorneys'....... 1407
Fees for Nicholls
D. Miscellaneous Restrictions on............ 1408
Cross- Examination
V. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS.......................... 1408
A. Admission of Cocaine..................... 1408
B. Limitations on Collateral Impeachment.... 1409
C. Prior consistent Statements.............. 1411
D. Co-conspirators' Statements 1411
VI. THE REFERENCE TO BLACK'S BEING............... 1413
NAMED IN ANOTHER INDICTMENT
VII. DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS............. 1414
A. Jencks Act............................... 1414
B. Sixth Amendment.......................... 1415
C. Brady.................................... 1416
D. Statments by Co-conspirators............. 1417
VIII. CONTINGENT PLEA ARRANGEMENTS................. 1418
IX. BURNS' DESIRE TO REPRESENT HIMSELF........... 1419
X. THE ERROR IN SENTENCING BELL................. 1422
XI. CONCLUSION................................... 1422
Before SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from criminal convictions following a complex, two-month trial before U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan.
All appellants were convicted on count one of the twenty-five count indictment: conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846 (1982). In addition, John C. Tarantino was convicted as a principal, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 (1982), of four counts of violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952 (1982). Fred B. Black, Jr. was also convicted of violating the Travel Act, and Wilfred Samuel Bell of distribution of cocaine.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), these appellants and others conspired to import, possess, and distribute large quantities of cocaine in various locales, and to launder the proceeds of this illegal activity. Lawrence ("Lonnie") Strickland, the main player in the conspiracy, testified for the government in exchange for a favorable recommendation to the sentencing judge who would consider Strickland's guilty plea. The government's evidence essentially established that (1) Black assisted Strickland in launching his drug operation and in laundering the resulting profits; (2) Robert H. Burns was instrumental in introducing Strickland to major drug importers (for which Burns received commissions) and laundering his illicit profits; (3) Tarantino participated heavily in distributing Strickland's cocaine and laundering his profits; and (4) Bell was Strickland's main distributor in the Washington, D.C. area.
Following guilty pleas by various defendants not now before us, a trial of the charges against Tarantino, Black, and Burns began on May 14, 1984. Judge Hogan declared a mistrial on June 13, 1984, and a new trial, in which Bell was joined, began on January 11, 1985. The jury returned the convictions on March 8, 1985.
We commend Judge Hogan on his conduct of this long and difficult trial. Apart from a few errors that we conclude did not deprive appellants of their right to a fair trial, Judge Hogan's management of the proceedings was admirable. We affirm in all respects, except that we remand Bell's sentence for compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D).
Each appellant argues that the evidence at trial varied impermissibly from the allegations of the indictment, and that the resultant prejudice deprived him of his right to a fair trial.
A variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof at trial constitutes grounds for reversal only if the appellant proves (1) that the evidence at trial established facts materially variant from those alleged in the indictment, and (2) that the variance caused substantial prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487, 1499-1500 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 3265, 97 L.Ed.2d 763 (1987). In a conspiracy prosecution, for example, the appellant may prove (1) that the evidence established the existence of multiple conspiracies, rather than the one conspiracy alleged in the indictment, and (2) that because of the multiplicity of defendants and conspiracies, the jury was substantially likely to transfer evidence from one conspiracy to a defendant involved in another. Id.
The existence of a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies is primarily a question of fact for the jury. E.g., United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656, 662 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 589, 93 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986); United States v. Molt, 772 F.2d 366, 369 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081, 106 S.Ct. 1458, 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1986); United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784, 787 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 934, 105 S.Ct. 332, 83 L.Ed.2d 269 (1984). The verdict must be upheld if the evidence adequately supports a finding that a single conspiracy existed. Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 788; United States v. Arbelaez, 719 F.2d 1453, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1255, 104 S.Ct. 3543, 82 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984); cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ().
Appellants Bell and Burns urge us to follow the analysis of conspiracies used in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). Kotteakos involved multiple conspiracies to defraud the Federal Housing Administration. The key figure, Brown, arranged with various defendants to submit false loan applications. None of the applicants had any connection with the others, although each had a relationship with Brown. Nevertheless, the government charged all the applicants with participation in a single conspiracy. On appeal, the government acknowledged that the proof established multiple conspiracies. Brown was the hub of a wheel, and the various applicants were the spokes. Without a rim to enclose the spokes, however, the evidence made out multiple conspiracies, not the single one alleged. 328 U.S. at 755, 66 S.Ct. at 1243. The government granted this much, but merely argued that the variance was harmless, a position that the Supreme Court rejected.
The wheel metaphor has not been strictly applied as the method of analysis for all conspiracies, and particularly not for drug conspiracies. Rather, courts have utilized a chain metaphor.
An example is United States v. Gantt, 617 F.2d 831 (D.C.Cir.1980). The evidence established that the appellants had travelled from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles to purchase narcotics. Other evidence established that the narcotics were later sold in D.C. The defendants claimed that these transactions were entirely distinct, establishing two conspiracies. The court disagreed. Certain defendants went to California to purchase narcotics, others prepared the drugs for sale in D.C., others distributed the drugs, and still others actually sold them. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S.A v. Wilson, No. 06-3128
... ... Apr. 27, 2006 AM Trial Tr. at 80 (Omari Minnis) (“say it was five of us outside, you know, whoever was outside first goes first, come up second, go second. Don't matter how much they wanted or, you know, they wanted ... Id. (emphasis in original). This court has adopted the plurality's holding ... United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1415-16 (D.C.Cir.1988). Based on their access to the ... ex parte information of March 27, 2006 for the first time after filing ... ...
-
U.S. v. Beckford
... ... Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1414-15 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1988) ( Jencks Act limitations on discovery do not lessen the Government's Brady obligations to disclose ... ...
-
U.S. v. White
... ... rest their claim to the clear and convincing standard mainly on the Fifth Circuit decision in Thevis, 665 F.2d at 631, while the government urges us to follow a host of circuit court decisions requiring only a preponderance of the evidence. Houlihan, 92 F.3d at 1280; Aguiar, 975 F.2d at 47; ... The judge denied the motions and they now claim that doing so was an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1398 (D.C.Cir.1988) ... The Supreme Court has found a general preference for joint trials in the federal system, ... ...
-
U.S. v. Vastola
... ... The issue before us is whether the district court retained subject matter jurisdiction to grant a time extension for the government's filing of a notice of appeal. We ... See United States v. Pandozzi, 878 F.2d 1526, 1530 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1407 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 174, 102 L.Ed.2d 143 (1988) ... 31 Relying on a litany of cases in which ... ...
-
Pretrial discovery
...the fair resolution of criminal cases. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice , §11-2.2; see, e.g. , United States v. Tarantino , 846 F.2d 1384, 1415 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 840 (1988); United States v. Hinton , 631 F.2d 769, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Poi......
-
Safeguarding the Opportunity for Effective Cross-Examination: The Confrontation Clause and Pretrial Disclosures
...defendants the right to compelled pretrial Grider, No. 98-6376, 2000 WL 571959, at *6 (6th Cir. May 4, 2000); United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1415–16 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 97. See, e.g., Hargrove, 382 F. App’x at 774–75 (making no mention of Brady and noting that the def......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 608 A Witness's Character For Truthfulness Or Untruthfulness
...of a prior inconsistent statement offered for impeachment is governed by Rules 402 and 403, not Rule 608(b)); United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (admissibility of extrinsic evidence offered to contradict a witness is governed by Rules 402 and 403); United States v. L......