United States v. Campbell, Crim. No. 57-280.

• Citation: 206 F. Supp. 213
• Decision Date: 01 May 1961
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 57-280.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. Alvin CAMPBELL et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

206 F. Supp. 213

UNITED STATES v. Alvin CAMPBELL et al.

Crim. No. 57-280.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

May 1, 1961.

William J. Koen, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

Lawrence F. O'Donnell, George Ward, Boston, Mass., Melvin S. Louison, Taunton, Mass., for defendant.

McCARTHY, District Judge (retired, sitting by designation).

This case affecting three defendants came on for a hearing before me as the result of a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States in Campbell, et al. v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 81 S. Ct. 421, 5 L.Ed.2d 428, in the form of a remand without in any way ordering a new trial except under conditions set forth in the mandate itself and with the direction from the Supreme Court to hold a new inquiry consistent with the opinion rendered. I have done so, and I have tried to carry out this mandate. I gave counsel for the defendants and counsel for the United States government full opportunity to carry on with a full inquiry. A transcript of the testimony taken by a court stenographer covers 283 pages.

Findings of Fact

1. On July 19, 1957, Special Agent John F. Toomey of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed Dominic Staula in regard to a bank robbery which had taken place in the Canton branch of the Norfolk County Trust Company, this interview taking place at the Canton Police Station on the day following the robbery.

2. The interview lasted about thirty minutes. No one was present in the room but Agent Toomey and Mr. Staula. In the course of the interview Mr. Staula told Agent Toomey, in narrative form, the story of the experience on the preceding day. Mr. Toomey, who does not have the ability to take shorthand notes, noted in longhand, key words and abbreviations and one quote sufficient to recall to his mind the story told by Mr. Staula.

3. After hearing the story and asking specific questions intended to clarify the narrative, Agent Toomey repeated to Mr. Staula, from memory and using the notes which he had taken only to refresh his recollection, the substance of the story which Mr. Staula had related to him. There was nothing in the reading of the notes back to Mr. Staula that indicated there was the slightest disagreement to the story as Agent Toomey related it.

4. Agent Toomey did not transcribe the story related to him by Mr. Staula word for word. Neither did he show the notes to Mr. Staula for approval, nor have him sign or initial the notes, nor did he obtain any written statement from Mr. Staula at any time. Agent Toomey saw Mr. Staula only on the one occasion of the interview of July 19, 1957.

5. It was not until 9 P.M. on the same day that Agent Toomey returned to the branch office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Brockton, Massachusetts, which was his office, where he read into a dictaphone what was referred to as an Interview Report concerning his talk with Mr. Staula in accordance with the practice of the office. The recorded statement of Agent Toomey was then forwarded to the Boston Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for transcription and the completed report was returned to Agent Toomey in the Brockton Office in about five days. It would clearly appear there was no secretary assigned to this office and this was the medium by which the transcriptions were made, he being the only man assigned to the office in Brockton. The completed product was returned to Agent Toomey in about five days, and it truly reproduced what he had dictated.

6. I find that the Interview Report made by Agent Toomey is not a written statement made by Mr. Staula nor was it signed or otherwise adopted or approved by Mr. Staula.

7. I find that the Interview Report is not a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription of such a recording, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by Mr. Staula to Agent Toomey. I further find that no substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement of Mr. Staula was recorded contemporaneously with the making of an oral statement by Mr. Staula.

8. I find that the original notes taken by Agent Toomey were not a written statement made by Mr. Staula nor was it signed or otherwise adopted or approved by Mr. Staula.

9. I find that the original notes made by Agent Toomey were not a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription of such a recording, which was substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by Mr. Staula to Agent Toomey. I further find that the original notes made by Agent...