United States v. Essex

• Decision Date: 03 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 12458.,12458.
• Citation: 275 F. Supp. 393
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Patricia Ann ESSEX, also known as Patricia Ann Clark.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

275 F. Supp. 393

UNITED STATES of America v. Patricia Ann ESSEX, also known as Patricia Ann Clark.

No. 12458.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

November 3, 1967.

Austin Mittler, Michael Epstein, Daniel Schultz, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., J. H. Reddy, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

John S. McLellan, Jr., Kingsport, Tenn., Harold S. Duncan, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FRANK W. WILSON, District Judge.

This is a proceeding under the provisions of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq.) wherein the defendant is charged with having committed an act of juvenile delinquency and being a juvenile delinquent, in having allegedly committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Originally, the grand jury had returned an indictment against defendant for the alleged violation, but when it appeared that defendant was a juvenile and consented to trial as such, the indictment was withdrawn and the information herein filed. The information was filed April 21, 1967, and according to the consent of defendant filed herein, she was then 17 years of age, having been born October 9, 1949. A hearing was held in chambers, upon the request of the parties and with the consent of the defendant, upon August 31 and September 1, 1967, whereupon evidence was presented and argument made on behalf of the respective parties. At the outset of the hearing, a motion was made on behalf of the defendant to dismiss the information. During the course of the hearing, certain objections arose concerning the admissibility of evidence. These, together with the case itself, were taken under advisement by the Court, and are for decision.

I. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

At the outset of the hearing, counsel for defendant orally moved to dismiss the information. This motion was thereafter reduced to writing, and rests upon the following grounds: (1) that the information fails to charge an offense cognizable under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and (2) that the information has improperly laid venue in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The information, insofar as it charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 in this District, reads as follows:

"* * * (the defendant) did on or about the first day of September, 1965, in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division, corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in the United States District Court for said District, in that she wilfully caused to be filed an affidavit subscribed by her in support of a motion for new trial in the case of United States v. James R. Hoffa et al D.C., 268 F.Supp. 732 (Criminal No. 11,989) in which affidavit she claimed to have had sexual intercourse with the following five petit jurors during the trial of United States v. James R. Hoffa, et al while said jurors were sequestered on the tenth floor of the Read House Hotel in Chattanooga, Tennessee: William Link; John Curbow; Ed Case; John A. Kilgore, and L. R. Burrows, which claims were false and known by her to be false when made, in violation of Section 1503, Title 18 United States Code (sic), contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America."

The Court will take up the arguments of defendant in the order presented.

Defendant first contends that, if any crime was committed, under the allegations of the information it was that of perjury, and not obstruction of justice under Section 1503. Defendant argues that the thrust of the statute is against violence, intimidation or corruption brought to bear upon witnesses, jurors or court officials, and not to the filing of false affidavits, and that the principle of ejusdem generis prevents the application of the statute in this case.

Section 1503 provides as follows:

"Whover corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness, in any court of the United States or before any United States commissioner or other committing magistrate, or any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States commissioner or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any party or witness in his person or property on account of his attending or having attended such court or examination before such officer, commissioner, or other committing magistrate, or on account of his testifying or having testified to any matter pending therein, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, commissioner, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

The defendant contends that the general language at the end of this section, "* * * or corruptly * * * influences, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice * *" embraces only acts of a similar nature as those set out earlier in the section. The government, on the other hand, contends that the general language is broad enough to include within its proscription the activity of the defendant as alleged in the information.

Defendant cites certain cases as authority for her contention in this respect. Haili v. United States (C.A. 9, 1958) 260 F.2d 744, 745, was a case wherein the defendant was convicted of a violation of Section 1503 for having associated with a probationer in knowing violation of the orders of the probation officer. The conviction was reversed on the ground that Section 1503 was not broad enough to cover defendant's conduct, the Court applying principle of ejusdem generis so that "the general words which follow the specific words in the enumeration of prohibited acts in the section here involved must be construed to embrace only acts similar in nature to those acts enumerated by the preceding specific words * * *" While the result in that case may have been correct, the Court is of the opinion that the language quoted from the opinion goes against the grain of most of the decisions construing Section 1503 and its predecessors, as will be further noted below. Catrino v. United States (C.A. 9, 1949), 176 F.2d 884, concerned a prosecution for both subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the same indictment. Defendant was accused of having procured one Renmaker to commit perjury in the course of defendant's earlier trial for selling whiskey to a minor Indian. Defendant was acquitted of the first charge and convicted of the second. The Court held that defendant had violated the obstruction of justice statute when he "`endeavored' to procure" false testimony as a step in the accomplishment of the offense of subornation of perjury. United States v. Bufalino (C.A. 2, 1960), 285 F.2d 408, 409, was a prosecution for alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice and commit perjury by giving false and evasive testimony before federal grand juries concerning a meeting of various persons at a rural home near Apalachin, New York, in 1957. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the defendants agreed to lie about the meeting or that the defendants knew at the alleged time of the conspiracy that they would be called before grand juries. During the course of the latter holding, the Court made the statement, quoted by defendant, that:

"Falsehoods given before non-judicial inquiries are not encompassed within 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the federal obstruction of justice statute."

The Court apparently referred to the police interrogation of the defendants, during which it might be said that defendants were evasive or untruthful. In United States v. Scoratow (D.C.Pa., 1956), 137 F.Supp. 620, it was held that an "obstruction of justice" under Section 1503 must be in relation to a proceeding pending in federal court, and that a threat to kill a person if such person divulged information of a certain nature to the FBI, prior to the filing of any complaint with a United States commissioner, was not a violation of Section 1503.

In cases involving Section 1503, a number of courts have stated that Section 1503 is broad in its application and proscribes a wide variety of conduct which, though not specifically described in the statute, interferes with the administration of justice. See Catrino v. United States, supra; Samples v. United States (C.A. 5, 1941), 121 F.2d 263, cert. den. 314 U.S. 622, 62 S.Ct. 129, 86 L.Ed. 530; United States v. Solow (D.C.N.Y., 1956), 138 F.Supp. 812; United States v. Bittinger (D.C.Mo., 1876), 24 Fed.Cas. No. 14,598, p. 1149; United States v. Cohen (D.C.Conn., 1962), 202 F.Supp. 587; United States v. Polakoff (C.A. 2, 1941), 121 F.2d 333, cert. den. 314 U.S. 626, 62 S.Ct. 107, 86 L.Ed. 503. In Catrino, the Court made this observation:

"The obstruction of justice statute is an outgrowth of Congressional recognition of the variety of corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted, a variety limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined. The concept of `justice' upon which the foundations of our society rest and which courts and judges are sworn to uphold encompasses not only the right of an accused to a fair trial, but it also calls for punishment if the accused is found guilty. This concept merely recognizes the inherent right of society to protect itself

...