U.S. v. Walker
Decision Date | 18 September 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. 84-3461,84-3605,s. 84-3461 |
Citation | 772 F.2d 1172 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy E. WALKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Lemann, O'Hara & Miles, Arthur A. Lemann, III, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.
John P. Volz, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., Sara Criscitelli, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GOLDBERG, REAVLEY, and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant, Roy E. Walker, appeals from his conviction in a jury trial of various offenses relating to the importation, possession, and distribution of marihuana, and of wire fraud. On appeal, he argues, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to reopen the evidence to permit him to testify in his own defense. We find that the district court exceeded its discretion and reverse and remand for a new trial. 1
Defendant-appellant, Roy E. Walker, a former New Orleans restaurateur and honorary reserve captain in the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, was convicted in a jury trial of two counts of conspiracy to import marihuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 952(a), 960(a)(1), 963; one count of importation of marihuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; four counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1), 846; four counts of possession with the intent to distribute marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; and one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, consisting of concurrent four-year terms on all counts except the importation and wire fraud charges, a consecutive three-year term on the importation charge, and a consecutive two-year term on the wire fraud count.
Evidence at trial reflected that while in Las Vegas in October 1980, Walker was introduced to Leroy Buras, the head of a massive drug smuggling operation, 2 by their mutual friend and attorney, A.J. Graffagnino. Contemporaneous with this meeting, Buras was told of Walker's position in the reserve force and that Walker was a brother-in-law of Harry Lee, the sheriff of Jefferson Parish. Shortly after their initial meeting, Buras asked Walker to obtain for him a copy of a police report which discussed the November 1980 seizure of five trucks and a shrimp boat, "Will's Folly," which had been caught transporting approximately twenty-one tons of marihuana. Buras had been involved in the smuggling of the marihuana that had been aboard the seized boat and trucks. Walker agreed and obtained a copy of the report, for which he supposedly was paid $5,000. Walker conceded that he had obtained a copy of the report, but denied that he was paid for his assistance.
There was evidence that Buras subsequently asked Walker to become part of his drug smuggling organization, and that Walker, prompted by his serious financial condition, accepted the offer in February 1981. According to immunized testimony by members of the Buras organization, Walker's role was to monitor local police activity when drug shipments arrived into port by boat. The first such operation took place in March 1981 when a shrimp boat, the "Lil Thomas," arrived in a Lafitte, Louisiana port with approximately 20,000 There was also evidence that Walker subsequently helped distribute the marihuana that had arrived aboard the "Lil Thomas." Buras left several bales of marihuana in a grey truck outside appellant's restaurant on three separate occasions, and an additional load of marihuana at the home of one of appellant's associates. Walker, under this arrangement, took the bales, sold them, and retained a portion of the sales proceeds in partial payment for his help in providing surveillance when the shipment arrived in port.
pounds of marihuana on board. According to the smugglers' testimony, Walker provided a list of radio frequencies and call signs used by local law enforcement officers to enable the smugglers to keep track of local police activity by monitoring radio communications while the drug cargo was being offloaded and hidden in the marshes. There was also evidence that Walker supplied Buras' men with a police walkie-talkie radio from which the smugglers could determine the frequency at which the local police walkie-talkies were tuned. Testimony also indicated that while the boat was being offloaded, Walker cruised in a police car with a deputy of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office and kept Buras informed of local police activity, and that the deputy was paid $25,000 for his role.
The government also presented evidence that Walker took part in the smuggling of a second shipment of 40,000 pounds of marihuana which arrived in New Orleans aboard the vessel "Shady Lady" in May 1981. Walker took part in negotiations for warehouse space to store the cargo once it arrived. He also again took part in surveillance of police activity the night the vessel arrived. There was evidence that for his participation in both the "Lil Thomas" and "Shady Lady" ventures, Walker earned approximately $220,000 in cash.
In July 1981, Buras, along with several of his coconspirators, fled to Costa Rica after receiving a tip from his attorney, Graffagnino, that he was about to be indicted. One of Buras' accomplices, Frank Smith, subsequently was arrested on February 25, 1982, when he made a return visit to the United States. 3 Shortly after Smith was arrested, Walker and Buras had a telephone conversation during which, according to Buras' testimony, Walker stated that he could get a magistrate to reduce Smith's $350,000 bond in exchange for a bribe of $10,000 and use of a stud horse for breeding purposes. Buras testified at trial that his attorney, Graffagnino, gave the bribe money to Walker. Smith's bond subsequently was reduced to $150,000, 4 which he met. Smith subsequently was convicted of four counts of importing marihuana and was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment.
Smith's conviction and twenty-year sentence prompted Buras to contact the government and attempt to arrange lighter sentences for himself and his associates, including Smith, in exchange for cooperation in drug cases. Buras and his associates began providing information to the government; in exchange, Smith's sentence was reduced to five years, and Buras and certain smugglers received relatively light sentences. 5
Information provided by Buras and the members of his organization led to an investigation into Walker's possible involvement in drug smuggling activity. In November 1983, Walker was charged under a superceding indictment 6 with eleven counts of conspiracy to import, importation, conspiracy to possess, and possession of marihuana, and one count of wire fraud in connection with his alleged telephone conversation with Buras and receipt of bribe money from Graffagnino. The case, which was tried to a jury, commenced on Monday, May 14, 1984. The prosecution completed its case-in-chief the following Thursday, May 17, after calling twenty-six witnesses, including Buras, Smith, and six other smugglers testifying under government immunity. The court adjourned for the day at 4:00 p.m., May 17. The defense began its case Friday morning, May 18. In his opening statement that morning, counsel for defense told the jury, The same day, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Walker's attorney requested a brief recess so he could talk to appellant "about possibly testifying in his own behalf." Walker's attorney added that the speed with which the government presented its case-in-chief "caught [him] with [his] ... pants down." The district court granted a recess so that Walker and his attorney could confer. 7 Before the jury was brought back into the courtroom, defense counsel informed the court that he was "absent a couple of witnesses" and that the defense would be unable to present them that day. At this point, the district court asked whether the defense had available any other witnesses it planned to call to the stand, and asked whether Walker was going to testify. The following dialogue ensued:
The district court explored the possibility of issuing an instanter subpoena and having one of the two missing witnesses brought into court to testify that afternoon; Walker's attorney tentatively agreed. Defense counsel then...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Cochener
...a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors." Id. (quoting United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172, 1176 n. 9 (5th Cir.1985)). (2) Sanctionable The Fifth Circuit has held that a court's inherent power to sanction "must be exercised with rest......
-
88 Hawai'i 407, State v. Christian, 20804
...denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. Id. at 1103, 1105 (citation omitted) (emphases added). See also United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172, 1176 (5th Cir.1985) (reversing defendant's conviction and remanding for new trial where trial court, at commencement of next day of trial ......
-
State v. Rivera
...to the fundamental issue in this capital murder trial than a defendant's own testimony about the killing. See United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172, 1179 (5th Cir.1985) (“Where the very point of a trial is to determine whether an individual was involved in criminal activity, the testimony ......
-
Alliance for Good Gov't v. Coal. for Better Gov't
...564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), and in reviewing discretionary decisions by district courts, United States v. Walker , 772 F.2d 1172, 1176 n.9 (5th Cir. 1985). A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with "a definite and firm conviction" that the pr......
-
In Re L-a-c-: a Pragmatic Approach to the Burden of Proof and Corroborating Evidence in Asylum Proceedings
...untimely request to testify.”) (citing United States v. Byrd, 403 F.3d 1278, 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172, 1177 (5th Cir. 1985)); United States v. Peterson, 233 F.3d 101, 106 (1st Cir. 2000)). 237. Holder v. Martinez-Gutierrez, 566 U.S. 583, 591......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...“The facial expressions of a witness may convey much more to the trier of facts than do spoken words.” U.S. v. Walker (5th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1172, 1179. Coy v. Iowa (1988) 486 U.S. 1012, held the Confrontation Clause was violated where a screen was placed between the Defendant and minor w......
-
If the Mask Fits: the Unconstitutionality of Face Masks in Criminal Trials During Covid-19
...Id. at 905.153. Id. at 905-06.154. Id. at 908.155. Id.156. Id.157. Id. at 909-10.158. Id. at 909 (citing United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172, 1179 (5th Cir. 1985).159. Id. at 908.160. Id. at 909. The Sammons court also held refusing to disclose the identity of the witness violated the Co......