United States v. Jones

• Decision Date: 18 March 1968
• Docket Number: No. 11520-11522.,11520-11522.
• Citation: 392 F.2d 567
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ray JONES, Jr., Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vernon COOPER, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frederick CHILDS, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

392 F.2d 567 (1968)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ray JONES, Jr., Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vernon COOPER, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frederick CHILDS, Appellant.

Nos. 11520-11522.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 10, 1968.

Decided March 18, 1968.

George A. Fath, Alexandria, Va., Court-appointed counsel, for appellants.

Stefan C. Long, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges, and KELLAM, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Jones, Cooper, and Childs were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury and tried for escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).¹ At the trial it was shown that on February 10, 1967, all three defendants were missing from the Lorton Reformatory at 4:00 P.M. On February 11, the defendants were discovered at liberty in Washington, D. C., taken into custody, and returned to confinement in the District of Columbia jail.

The indictment under which the defendants were tried charges three elements: (1) an escape (2) from an institution in which the defendant is confined by direction of the Attorney General, i. e., the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Reformatory Division, (3) and that confinement was by virtue of a conviction of a felony.² The questions presented on this appeal relate to the second and third elements. The defendants challenge the admission into evidence of the "Judgment and Commitment" papers on the ground that the documents were unauthenticated copies. But on the face of each document is the following inscription: "It Is Ordered that the Clerk deliver a certified copy of this judgment and commitment to the United States Marshall or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as the commitment of the defendant." (Italics added.) The reverse side of each document bears the return of the United States Marshal showing that the prisoner was delivered to the Washington Asylum and Jail. We think that the district court may effectively provide that a copy of the judgment and commitment be treated as an original document. That it was so treated is established by competent parol testimony: the receiving clerk at Lorton Reformatory testified that he received the documents (as authority for the detention of the prisoners) via courier from the Washington Asylum and Jail. Although copies with respect to the district court, they professed to be, and were in fact, originals with respect to Lorton Reformatory where they were kept as authority for detention. Thus, they were admissible under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732(a) as a writing made in the regular course of business. "If a writing purports to be an official report or record and is proved to have come from the proper public office where such official papers are kept, it is generally agreed that this authenticates the offered document as genuine." McCormick, Evidence § 191 (1954). It is clear that the documents offered in evidence were kept at Lorton although originating out of the district court. It is urged that the record clerk at Lorton who identified the papers could, of course, have had no personal knowledge of the conviction in the district court. But this goes to weight not admissibility. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732 (a).

The defendants also contend that the government failed to prove that their confinement at Lorton was by direction of the Attorney General. It is true that the return on the reverse side of the judgment showed only that the prisoners were delivered to the Washington Asylum and Jail. But the government also introduced into evidence Lorton Reformatory Assignment and Movement Sheets which showed the date of arrival of each defendant. In...