United States v. Atwood, Cr. No. 82-00095.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1982
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 82-00095.
• Citation: 538 F. Supp. 1206
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Blake ATWOOD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

538 F. Supp. 1206

UNITED STATES of America v. Blake ATWOOD.

Cr. No. 82-00095.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 20, 1982.

U. S. Atty. Edward F. Borden, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for the government.

A. John Snite, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

SHAPIRO, District Judge.

In this criminal prosecution, the government has charged defendant Blake Atwood in a sixteen-count indictment with violating the United States Code's prohibitions against mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342; Counts 1-3, 12-16), making fraudulent statements or representations to government departments or agencies (18 U.S.C. § 1001; Counts 4-10), and knowingly transmitting a forged writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States (18 U.S.C. § 494; Count 11). Defendant, when the Vice-President of Damascus Hosiery Mills, Inc. ("Damascus"), a corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia, obtained contracts with the Armed Forces for the manufacture of socks. The government contends that defendant "rigged" the contract bidding. The government also claims that the defendant devised a "kickback" scheme by which subcontractors paid money to a nonexistent "Damascus Yarn Sales" in return for obtaining subcontracts in connection with the government contracts. Defendant now moves to transfer this action to the Western District of Virginia; the motion will be granted.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) permits transfer of criminal proceedings to another district "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice ...." The Supreme Court has identified the factors to be considered: "(1) location of ... defendant; (2) location of possible witnesses; (3) location of events likely to be in issue; (4) location of documents and records likely to be involved; (5) disruption of defendant's business unless the case is transferred; (6) expense to the parties; (7) location of counsel; (8) relative accessibility of place of trial; (9) docket condition of each district or division involved; and (10) any other special elements which might affect the transfer." Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243-44, 84 S.Ct. 769, 771-72, 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964). See, United States v. Haley, 504 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D.Pa.1981).

The defendant is presently located in western Virginia. Defendant has conceded that he spent limited time (three winter months in two years) since his retirement in a condominium he owns in Florida but his testimony at the hearing on this motion establishes that he remains a resident of Virginia. He certainly has no meaningful contact with the state of Pennsylvania. In accord with recent decisions in this District, defendant's home district is entitled to "real weight." Haley, supra at 1126; United States v. Barrientos, 485 F.Supp. 789, 791 (E.D.Pa.1980).

The location of possible witnesses is an important consideration because it directly affects defendant's ability to defend himself at trial. It also is related to the expense to the parties. Defendant has submitted an affidavit listing twenty-five proposed witnesses. Of these, eight would testify to the facts of the alleged fraudulent schemes and the remainder to defendant's character and reputation in the community.

All fact witnesses reside in western Virginia or North Carolina; three of these fact witnesses are related to the defendant. All possible character witnesses, except for one, reside in that area; that witness resides in Atlanta. Assuming arguendo that the court would not permit all of the character witnesses to testify because of the cumulative effect of their testimony, see, Haley, supra at 1128, defendant, a retiree who has testified to an annual income of approximately $20,000, would still incur considerable expense in reimbursing travel and lodging expenses even only for those witnesses who are likely to testify.

Although the government stated at the hearing that it would pay certain expenses of a Philadelphia trial for defendant's non-family fact witnesses, the government's offer does not remove the location of witnesses as a factor favoring the grant of the defense motion. The government has not challenged the significance of the testimony defendant proposes to offer, so it is unclear why it would not aid the defense to have all of his witnesses available to appear in court. This court cannot assume that the witnesses, except for defendant's wife, will come to Philadelphia at their own expense; even the wife's expenses must be considered since her testimony is material and she would not incur those expenses in Virginia. This case concerns a closely held family corporation and testimony of family members may be the most material. Indeed, at the hearing it was alleged without contradiction that a principal witness against defendant will be his brother-in-law. But the government has not offered to pay expenses of family members who would testify in favor of defendant rather than against him.

Moreover, the court cannot ignore expenses of defendant's character witnesses, whose testimony is unquestionably admissible, as if character testimony in this trial will be unimportant. It will not be: each count of the indictment depends in part on defendant's intent and character testimony is highly relevant to this issue. See, e.g., Petersen v. United States, 268 F.2d 87, 88 (10th Cir. 1959). Although the trial judge will have the discretion to limit the number of witnesses to avoid unnecessary, cumulative testimony, 2 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 40405 (1981), it cannot now be assumed that the character witnesses will not be permitted to testify.

The costs defendant would incur in transportation to Philadelphia and lodging here for five character witnesses and three family fact witnesses would impose a considerable financial burden on defendant. Defendant has estimated the costs for each witness to come here to be a minimum of $350, a figure which seems quite reasonable. Eight witnesses, then, would involve an expense of at least $3,000 and probably significantly more.

The location of witnesses involves more than just the cost to defendant in calling willing witnesses to trial in a distant forum. The inconvenience to the witnesses themselves must be considered. Defendant avers ill health of five of his eight fact witnesses (four elderly persons with serious heart problems, and one with a serious back problem). There is no suggestion any of the character witnesses are in poor health. Defendant does not aver sufficient factors for the court to ascertain whether the witnesses' business and personal affairs would be seriously disrupted by a trip to Philadelphia; it is doubtful that significant disruption would occur by reason of the limited time required for their appearance. But the health problems of the fact witnesses must figure significantly in the court's decision, because where it is possible to transfer the trial to a federal court relatively close to the witnesses' doctors and reached by these witnesses with far less physical stress, the court should seek to accommodate the interest of justice with the interest of the witnesses.¹

Defendant argues that the presence of other witnesses located in Virginia might be required unexpectedly in the course of trial; it would then be difficult to obtain their testimony if the trial is held in Philadelphia. This is sheer speculation and of little weight.

Having concluded that defendant would incur significant expense in obtaining known witnesses for trial in Philadelphia and that some of those witnesses would suffer risks to health from travel, it is necessary to explore the inconvenience to government witnesses by transfer. These witnesses' needs are no less important than those of the defense witnesses; while the government has greater resources with which to pay travel and lodging expenses, public funds are to be safeguarded. The government has listed four "bid-rigging"...