United States v. Remmer, 12177.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
• Citation: United States v. Remmer, 122 F.Supp. 673 (D. Nev. 1954)
• Decision Date: 10 July 1954
• Docket Number: No. 12177.,12177.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. REMMER.

122 F. Supp. 673

UNITED STATES v. REMMER.

No. 12177.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

July 10, 1954.

Madison B. Graves, U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff.

Leslie C. Gillen, John R. Golden, San Francisco, Cal., Spurgeon Avakian, Oakland, Cal., Lohse & Fry, Reno, Nev., for defendant.

LOUIS E. GOODMAN, District Judge, (sitting by special designation).

Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, 347 U.S. 230, 74 S.Ct. 450, a hearing was had in the above entitled court at its court room in Carson City, Nevada, on June 7, 8, and 9, 1954 for the purpose of determining whether or not the "incident complained of", and described in the opinion of the Supreme Court, 347 U.S. 228, 74 S.Ct. 450, 452, was harmful to the petitioner, i. e., defendant Remmer.

The government assumed the burden of proceeding with the evidence. The court heard the testimony of 27 witnesses —

12 members of the jury.

2 alternates on the jury.

The person who communicated with the foreman of the jury during the trial of the case.

The Trial Judge.

The secretary to the Trial Judge 5 government attorneys who participated in the conduct of the case.

The FBI agent, who investigated the "incident complained of."

A deputy U. S. Marshal, who, among other deputies, had charge of the jury during the trial.

The wife of the person who communicated with the foreman of the jury.

The wife of the foreman of the jury.

One of the attorneys for the defendant.

Since the Supreme Court empowered this court, if it found that "the incident complained of" was harmful to the petitioner, to grant a new trial, the court proceeded as if it were hearing a motion for a new trial based upon the ground that "the incident complained of" was harmful to the defendant. (This is the hearing that the Supreme Court declared should have been held in the first instance.)

I find that what occurred was as follows:

On or about December 20, 1951, after the trial of U. S. v. Remmer had been in progress approximately 3 weeks, one James H. Satterly visited the home of Irwin J. Smith, foreman of the jury, for the purpose of conducting some insurance business with Smith, who was an insurance agent or broker. As well, Satterly had a social acquaintance with the foreman as a fellow hunter. During the course of the visit at the foreman's home, Satterly made substantially the following comment: I know Bones Remmer very well. He sold Cal Neva for $850,000 and really got about $300,000 under the table which he daresn't touch. Why dont you make a deal with him?

Foreman Smith interrupted Satterly and in substance replied that he was a member of the jury and that he had been instructed by the court not to discuss the case with anyone. No more was said on the subject.

Foreman Smith regarded the comment of Satterly as being jocular, but, later, after turning the incident over in his mind, and being mindful of the admonition of the court,¹ reported it to the trial judge, the Honorable Roger T. Foley on December 22nd. Thereupon Judge Foley notified the U. S. Attorney's office and Assistant U. S. Attorney Bruce R. Thompson visited Judge Foley. The Judge and Mr. Thompson discussed the incident and Mr. Thompson decided that the incident should be investigated with the view of determining whether Satterly had committed an offense against the laws of the United States.² To that end, and for that purpose, FBI agent T. Hiram Collister was directed to make an investigation. Mr. Collister then interviewed Foreman Smith, advising him at the time that he, Smith, was not being investigated, but that the FBI was making an investigation to determine whether or not there had been a violation of law by Satterly. Information concerning Satterly was given by foreman Smith to agent Collister. The agent further made inquiries as to the criminal and credit record of Satterly. The FBI was then unable to locate Satterly, who had departed for the northwest. Subsequently, the FBI returned a report to the U. S. Attorney, in substance containing the foregoing facts. The U. S. Attorney's office then determined that there was not sufficient evidence upon which to take proceedings against Satterly. None of the foregoing matters were, at any time, communicated to any member of the jury or to the two alternates, and none of the jurors or alternates learned of the foregoing events until after their verdict was rendered.³

Satterly denied that he had made the comment to foreman Smith.

The foreman of the jury testified that the events described in no way affected his state of mind or his vote in arriving at the verdict.⁴

It is not true that the FBI agent was sent to investigate the foreman of the jury as to his conduct, as was conjectured in the opinion of the Supreme Court, 347 U.S. at page 229, 74 S.Ct. 450. There is not the slightest doubt, and I so find, that the purpose of the investigation was to determine whether or not Satterly had committed an offense.

I am completely satisfied that the incident referred to had no effect whatever upon the judgment, or the integrity or state of mind of the foreman of the jury. After thorough examination, the foreman appeared to me to be a forthright and honest man who took his duties as a juror with the utmost seriousness and with a full understanding of his responsibility.⁵ His testimony, plus that of the FBI agent Collister, the Judge of the Court and Assistant U. S. Attorney Thompson, is conclusive that the incident referred to was not in any way concerned with any investigation of the jury as to the conduct of any member of the jury either relating to the trial of the case or otherwise.

Consequently, the court finds that "the incident complained of" was entirely harmless so...