Wright v. United States

• Decision Date: 28 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 20478.,20478.
• Parties: Allen Eli WRIGHT, Edward Hugh Wuensche, Arnold D. Naidich, and Willard L. Richardson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

356 F.2d 261 (1966)

Allen Eli WRIGHT, Edward Hugh Wuensche, Arnold D. Naidich, and Willard L. Richardson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20478.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

February 1, 1966.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1966.

Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., Biloxi, Miss., Clyde W. Woody, Robert L. Sonfield, C. Anthony Friloux, Jr., Houston, Tex., for appellants.

William M. Schultz, Asst. U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., Fred L. Hartman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.

CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge:

In July, 1961, the farm home of Israel Greenberg and his son Samuel, in Mount Holly, N. J., was burglarized. Included in the loot were eight United States Treasury 4% registered bonds, each having a face value of $10,000.00. A year after the burglary, in July 1962, at the Summit Hotel, in New York City, one Di Fonzo sold the bonds to Edward Hugh Wuensche for the sum of $8,000.00.

Subsequently, Wuensche learned that the bonds might be disposed of in Houston, Texas, and on July 13, 1962, he chartered a private plane which flew him to Houston. The following day, Wuensche and Allen Eli Wright flew to Laurel, Mississippi, and there met one George Simmerman, a Mississippi attorney. After meeting with Simmerman and Wright, Wuensche returned to Houston and from there went to New York, Wright remaining in Laurel with Simmerman. Simmerman and Wright, in Wuensche's absence, called on various individuals in the Mississippi Gulf Coast area, displaying the bonds, and seeking either to borrow money on them or to exchange them for other securities. Later, Willard L. Richardson, also a Mississippi attorney, with the assistance of one Millette, arranged for the pledging of the bonds to one John Walker, the arrangement being that Walker would advance $60,000.00 upon the security of the eight Greenberg bonds, which were to be endorsed to him. At the end of 10 days, Wright was to redeem the bonds for $70,000.00, and in the event that Wright was unable to redeem the bonds at the end of 10 days, they would become the absolute property of Walker, thereby giving him a profit of $20,000.00 in addition to the accrued interest on the bonds. It was part of the scheme that Wright was to pay Richardson a fee of $5,000.00, and a like fee or commission to Millette. There was also evidence that had Simmerman succeeded in pledging the bonds he was to have received $20,000.00.

On July 18, 1962, Millette, Richardson and one Moody flew to Houston, and on the following day Wuensche returned to that city. On that day, Suttles, a Houston financier, communicated with a Vice-President of the East End State Bank, and arranged with him for a meeting at that bank, which meeting took place on July 20th. Present at the meeting were Wright, Wuensche, Richardson and Millette. At this time, Wuensche masquerading as Samuel Greenberg forged the endorsement in that name, on the bonds, in the presence of these witnesses. The bonds were delivered to Walker, a check in the amount of $60,000.00 made out by Walker to Millette was endorsed by the latter, payable to the defendant Wright, who thereupon opened an account at the East End State Bank, deposited the check to his credit, and immediately withdrew $30,000.00.

Subsequently, an indictment in 19 counts, involving a number of individual defendants, was returned by the Grand Jury for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The first count charged Wright and Wuensche with the interstate transportation of the bonds, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 2314.¹ The second count charged the same defendants with receiving, concealing, selling and disposing of the bonds, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., § 2315.² Counts 3 through 10, inclusive, charged the same two defendants with uttering and publishing, and causing to be published as true, the forged signature of Samuel Greenberg on the bonds, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., § 495.³ Counts 11 through 18 charged these two defendants with forgery of the same signature on each of the eight bonds, also in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., § 495.⁴ Count 19 charged Wright, Wuensche, Joseph Di Fonzo, Arnold D. Naidich, Charles J. Guiliano, Willard L. Richardson, George M. Simmerman, James C. Suttles, William H. Grafft, and James Zimmerman with conspiracy to violate Title 18 U.S.C., §§ 495, 2314 and 2315, and violation of Title 18 U.S.C., § 371, the conspiracy statute.

Wright, Wuensche and Grafft were tried to a jury, and at the same time Richardson, Naidich and the remaining defendants were tried by the Court without a jury. The jury convicted Wright and Wuensche on all of the 19 counts in which they were charged, and acquitted Grafft on the one count in which he was charged. The trial judge found Richardson and Naidich guilty on the count in which they were charged, the conspiracy count, and acquitted the other defendants tried by him. The defendant Di Fonzo entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Rule 20.

Wright, Wuensche, Naidich and Richardson appealed their convictions. Subsequently, Naidich withdrew his appeal.

Wuensche has not filed a brief nor has any argument been made in his behalf. The government has not moved to dismiss his appeal under Rule 22 of this Court. We have carefully examined the record to determine whether his case presents any question not raised by the other appellants. We find that it does not, and we consider his appeal along with the others.

Appellant Wright's principal contention is that "The government failed to prove an essential element contained in all counts of the indictment, namely that the securities in question were genuine United States 4% Treasury bonds". We find this contention to be without merit. It is uncontroverted that within a few months after the theft of the bonds the government cancelled and replaced them. The bonds remained genuine obligations of the United States even after their cancellation on the records of the United States Department of the Treasury. The word genuine as applied to bonds and securities means that they are not false, forged, fictitious, simulated, spurious or counterfeit. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 816. It is not claimed, nor does the evidence suggest that the bonds were counterfeit or false. The fact that the bonds were cancelled would affect their redeemability, but not their genuineness. On their face, the bonds were genuine and valid obligations of the United States. With nothing on their face to indicate that they had been cancelled, a person in good faith might purchase them and learn of their cancellation only after having presented them for redemption.

We turn now to the second point raised by Wright. At the trial of the case, as has been previously stated, Wright, Wuensche and Grafft were tried by the jury, and Richardson and others by the Court. It appears that at the close of the government's case, all defendants moved for judgment of acquittal, and all such motions were denied. Appellant Wright then attempted to call certain of his co-defendants to testify in his behalf concerning the substantive counts in which they were not charged. Counsel for these defendants refused to permit them to testify, whereupon none of the defendants, including Wright, presented any evidence.

After the jury returned its verdict convicting Wright and Wuensche, and acquitting Grafft, the judge entered judgment of guilty as to Richardson and Naidich, and of acquittal as to the others tried by him. Wright contends that the trial judge in denying the motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case, of those defendants whom he later acquitted on the...