United States v. Caron, 251

• Decision Date: 20 April 1959
• Docket Number: Docket 25039.,No. 251,251
• Citation: 266 F.2d 49
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Henry Paul Norman CARON and Michael Joseph Castello, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

266 F.2d 49 (1959)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Henry Paul Norman CARON and Michael Joseph Castello, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 251, Docket 25039.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 2 and 3, 1959.

Decided April 20, 1959.

Lee W. Meyer, New York City (Florence M. Kelley, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant Henry Paul Norman Caron.

Abraham H. Brodsky, New York City (Lee W. Meyer, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant Michael Joseph Castello.

Marie L. McCann, Asst. U. S. Atty., for Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Richard B. Cooper, Asst. U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for the United States.

Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.^*

HINCKS, Circuit Judge.

The only question presented by this appeal arises from the admission, at trial, of the confession of one Henegan, a co-defendant tried and convicted in the same trial as these appellants. There was evidence which tended to show that on March 22, 1955, a lone man armed with a gun partly concealed by an umbrella held up a teller at the Liberty Avenue Branch of the Bank of Manhattan and escaped with $3,320. The teller identified Henegan as the robber. And Henegan confessed to agents of the F.B.I. His confession identified Caron as the instigator and planner of the crimes charged and as the driver of the stolen car which was used both to and from the scene of the robbery. His confession also identified Castello's apartment as the headquarters of the conspiracy which was used for the disposal of clothes worn during the robbery and for the division of spoils. It also recited that Castello received a share of the booty.

The prosecution's case against the appellants rested heavily upon the testimony of two witnesses, Held and Becker. Neither was a participant in the conspiracy. Becker testified that he had known Caron for several years, had met him in New York the day after the robbery; that at that time and during the next few days, Caron described the robbery to Becker in some detail and admitted his participation; and that he had also met Castello in Henegan's company during this period. Held testified that he had met Caron at Riker's Island Penitentiary and that Caron had disclosed to him there that he had robbed the bank with details as to the planning and execution of the robbery. Held also testified that he had met Castello in the Bronx City Prison where Castello admitted his part in planning the robbery.

The appellants urge that there was no substantial evidence, aside from Henegan's confession, that they were guilty of the conspiracy or as accessories to the robbery. But Held's and Becker's testimony provided, we think, substantial evidence of their participation. Both Held and Becker had criminal records and both had motives for testifying favorably to the prosecution. But their credibility was tested by intense and thorough examination and cross-examination. It was, of course, for the jury to say whether it believed their accounts of Caron's and Castello's admissions. On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Hedger v. Reynolds, 2 Cir., 216 F.2d 202, 203. The admissions of each appellant were corroborated by independent evidence of the commission of the crime by the teller's identification of Henegan as the robber; by evidence of the subsequent recovery of the stolen car in back of Castello's apartment; by Becker's direct testimony that while in Castello's apartment Castello showed him a gun; by evidence that Caron had paid for an automobile later resold by Henegan; and by evidence that Caron was in possession of large quantities of money in April, 1955. We hold that quite independent of Henegan's confession there was ample competent evidence to satisfy the rule of Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101, as to the corroboration of out-of-court admissions and that the evidence as a whole sufficiently supported the verdicts.

The appellants argue, however, that it was reversible error to try these defendants together, in view of Henegan's confession. In this contention, they seek to distinguish, as they must to succeed, Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278. That case holds that where the issues and the evidentiary restrictions are simple and the jury is...