Marcus T. BAUMANN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 81-5380
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
October 27, 1982
Submitted Nov. 12, 1981.
Only discipline based upon adultery is argued to be a constitutional violation. Because neither the Supreme Court nor this court has held—and because we do not now hold and cannot rationally assume the Court will hold—that extramarital sexual relations are constitutionally protected, it would be inappropriate for us to impose the Mt. Healthy standard, which is based on an accepted constitutional violation. Were we to do so, we would, in effect, prejudge the question we specifically do not reach.
Finally, I would not apply the Mt. Healthy requirements in the absence of constitutionally impermissible motives. There are certain costs associated with imposition of the Mt. Healthy requirements. Once an agency has imposed sanctions, based in part upon constitutionally protected conduct, the agency must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same action had it not considered the constitutionally protected conduct. This means that in some cases, while the agency would have taken the same action, it may not be able to demonstrate that it would have done so. Under these circumstances, for example, a school board might be precluded from refusing to rehire an incompetent teacher, not because it would not have reached that decision without resort to impermissible considerations, but because it cannot meet its burden of proof. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has determined, and I agree, that these costs are justifiable where the procedures are necessary to vindicate the exercise of constitutional rights. It should go without saying that where there has been no penalty on the exercise of a constitutional right, these costs are not justifiable. Thus, unless a constitutional right is implicated, the Mt. Healthy standard is inappropriate.
Susan A. Ehrlich, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before WALLACE, KENNEDY, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
Baumann appeals the district court‘s summary dismissal of his petition seeking postconviction relief pursuant to
I
On January 12, 1977, Baumann was indicted, along with fifteen other persons, on four counts of mail fraud and aiding and abetting,
Because they are relevant to his allegation of newly discovered evidence, we must review the complex set of facts that led to Baumann‘s conviction. See United States v. McDonald, supra, 576 F.2d at 1352-53. Hood formed Western in 1966 to purchase and sell subdivision real estate lots on contract, with title remaining with the original owner in trust until a “release price” was paid by Western. Bankers Finance & Holding Co. (Bankers), owned by Baumann, marketed the land sale contracts held by Western on a commission basis. Bankers would sell the contracts at a discounted value to investors, forward the receipts to Western, and then collect periodic contract payments from the lot buyers and forward these to the investors who had purchased the contracts. McDonald Investment Co., owned by Baumann‘s co-defendant McDonald, also brokered land sale contracts for Western.
Subsequently, Western entered into several subdivision agreements under which it was required to make periodic payments to the owner-trustees irrespective of lot sales. As a result, its cash-flow needs steadily increased. When Western‘s revenues from the sale of legitimate contracts proved insufficient to cover operating expenses, it began the fraudulent practices that led to the federal indictments. Hood and Western would write spurious land sale contracts to persons who were not expected to make payments on them, or would, in a few instances, forge signatures on the contracts. These so-called “fenceposted” contracts were then marketed to investors or pledged as security for loans to Western. To conceal the fraud, Western supported the fenceposted contracts by making the requisite periodic payments on them, which were sent to Central Service Bureau (CSB), an agent of Western employed to collect payments on contracts sold to investors, and allegedly also to Bankers. The brokers would forward the receipts to the investors who had purchased the contracts. These investors were not notified when Western was making payments on a contract, whether Western did so to cover a fenceposted contract or because of the default of the primary obligor, the lot buyer.
Western‘s financial success depended upon the continuing brisk sale of contracts,
Baumann, as president of Bankers, was a natural focus of the grand jury‘s inquiry. Nonetheless, he was named in only four of the fifty-five counts in the indictment. Two of the counts, Nos. 26 and 27, charged Baumann with mailing checks to investors in furtherance of the fenceposting scheme. The funds for these checks were allegedly supplied by Western. The third count, No. 28, charged Baumann with mailing a letter to investor Anderson; the letter notified Anderson of the default on his contract on which Baumann had allegedly altered the legal description of the underlying real estate. The final count, No. 29, charged Baumann with mailing a letter to Western “dunning” Western for payments on allegedly fenceposted contracts. All four counts charged Baumann with conduct knowingly in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, and aiding and abetting, between March 5, 1972, and July 26, 1973.
Baumann never contested the acts of mailing these letters, but rather insisted that there was no proof that the acts were undertaken in furtherance of the fenceposting scheme. Proof that the mailings were in furtherance of a scheme to defraud was clearly an essential element of the crime necessary to sustain Baumann‘s conviction under the indictment. United States v. McDonald, supra, 576 F.2d at 1360 n.16. According to Baumann, the contracts underlying Counts 26 and 27 were good contracts, not fenceposted contracts, and any problems experienced by the investors who had purchased these contracts occurred well after he had sold Bankers to another company. He contends that the altered description of the real estate underlying the contract involved in Count 28 was the product of Western‘s activities, of which he had no knowledge. Finally, he asserts that the “dunning” letter, the subject of Count 29, was mailed to Western in accordance with a “recourse” agreement between Western and Bankers, rather than in furtherance of the fenceposting scheme. Little, if any, direct evidence of Baumann‘s involvement in the fenceposting scheme was presented to the jury. His conviction was sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence of intent to defraud, including his status as a broker for Western‘s contracts and testimony that he had previously been involved in other fenceposting schemes. United States v. McDonald, supra, 576 F.2d at 1360 & n.17.
McDonald, also a broker for Western‘s contracts, was convicted on seven counts of mail fraud. He maintained that the evidence did not show participation with intent to defraud, that he marketed the contracts without knowledge of the fraud, and that he was in fact a victim of the scheme. Despite the government‘s contention that McDonald was aware of the “high probability” that at least some of the contracts he sold were fraudulent, his convictions were reversed on direct appeal because the record did not demonstrate facts from which the jury could have found specific intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1358-59.
II
We emphasize at the outset that we need not decide the truth of Baumann‘s allegations. The petition was dismissed by the district court without an evidentiary hearing.
In addition, the petition in this case was denied without ordering a response from the government. This is permitted by
III
Baumann claims that the indictment under which he was charged was invalid because it was improperly drawn. The district court reached the merits of this claim. The court rejected Baumann‘s multiplicity argument because each of the four counts charged Baumann with a separate violation of the mail fraud statute. Similarly, the court rejected the duplicity argument because the essence of Baumann‘s claim, that he had also been charged with a “scheme or artifice to defraud” in Count 1 of the indictment, was incorrect. Early in the trial it was stipulated between Baumann‘s counsel and the government that Baumann was not charged with a substantive offense under Count 1; the references to Count 1 in the counts of the indictment under which he was charged were references which incorporated only the factual allegations of Count 1. Thus, because the aiding and abetting statute,
We are also free to review the merits of this claim. Generally, an attack on the validity of an indictment is not properly raised collaterally pursuant to
IV
Baumann alleged in his
This allegation is made upon information and belief and points to nothing concrete. Instead, in maintaining his innocence, the defendant cannot accept the fact that the Government presented the “whole” case. Without an argument based in fact, this Court is unable to join in the speculation upon which the defendant bases his position.
The government relies on United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), in support of the district court‘s conclusion that Baumann had failed to make a sufficient affirmative showing to justify relief. However, Agurs decides only the standard of materiality applicable to undisclosed exculpatory evidence; it does not determine the petitioner‘s burden of production. Baumann has not alleged that the government knowingly relied on perjured testimony or that it ignored a specific pretrial request for discovery materials. Therefore, failure to disclose the allegedly exculpatory evidence would be a violation of due process only if, in the context of the entire record, the omitted evidence would have created a reasonable doubt that otherwise did not exist. Id. at 112, 96 S.Ct. at 2401.
In his brief on appeal, Baumann has included a letter from the Cauffmans, dated September 19, 1972, inquiring as to whether they should send their periodic contract payments to CSB or Bankers. He also includes a letter, dated October 6, 1972, from Western to the Cauffmans, instructing them to make their payments to CSB, which would then forward the payments to Bankers. Baumann alleges in his brief that at the time of trial the prosecution had in its possession both these letters, which allegedly demonstrate that the contract underlying Count 26 was legitimate. Baumann did not include these letters in his
V
Baumann raises several claims of error with respect to his sentencing. First, he claims that a “presentence report” written by an Assistant United States Attorney was not disclosed to him or his attorney, in violation of
Baumann does not allege on appeal that the report in question was ever “submitted to the court” within the meaning of
Next, Baumann raised a variety of claims before the district court which the court rejected with little or no discussion. Baumann sought a reduction of sentence on the ground of disparity between his sentence and those imposed on his co-defendants, and for leniency because of age, chronic arthritis and stomach problems. He asked the district court to expunge from his record the language in the Assistant United States Attorney‘s report relating to his potential for rehabilitation on the ground that it was unfair, self-serving, and prejudicial. Finally, he asked that his sentence be vacated because he allegedly was not given an opportunity to address the court on his own behalf at sentencing or to present information in mitigation of punishment, pursuant to
Baumann‘s most serious challenge to his sentencing relates to his interview with a probation officer. Baumann alleged in his petition that this interview occurred after he was convicted and that the results of this interview, in terms of the inferences drawn from it by the probation officer, were provided to the district judge for his use in imposing sentence. He maintained that in the absence of his attorney, this interview violated his sixth amendment right to counsel and that it constituted custodial interrogation prior to which he should have been given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (Miranda). Baumann relied primarily upon Smith v. Estelle, 602 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1979), a case subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) (Estelle). The district court rejected this claim without any substantial discussion of the difficult constitutional issues presented:
It is the understanding of this Court that the assistance of counsel and the giving of the Miranda warnings are measures taken to guarantee and effectuate a defendant‘s right to a fair trial and right not to incriminate himself. How these liberties are fostered by providing what the defendant has demanded after conviction is not clear. In any case, such novel arguments are better directed to an appellate court, as this court is bound to follow existing law.
We do not fault the district court for summarily rejecting this claim. Its order dismissing the petition was entered on April 23, 1981, nearly a month before the Supreme Court‘s decision in Estelle. At that time, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had construed either the fifth or sixth amendments to provide presentence rights to convicted defendants at all similar to those ultimately announced in Estelle. However, we are to apply the law, including intervening decisions of the Supreme Court, which is in effect at the time we render our decision, unless “manifest injustice” would result. Bradley v. School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 715-17, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2018-2019, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974); Monti v. Department of Industrial Relations, 582 F.2d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 1978). The record in this case is sufficient for our decision, which involves a freely reviewable question of law. Neither party has asked us to remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of Estelle. Therefore, we exercise our
In Estelle, the defendant submitted to a psychiatric examination prior to his state court trial on charges of murder. Under state law, murder is a capital offense requiring bifurcated proceedings—a guilt phase and a penalty phase. Once a defendant is convicted by the jury in the guilt phase, a separate proceeding before the same jury is held to fix the punishment. At the penalty phase, if the jury affirmatively answers three questions, the judge must impose the death sentence. One of these questions concerns the defendant‘s future dangerousness. 451 U.S. at 457-58, 101 S.Ct. at 1870-1871. The state was allowed to introduce testimony by a psychiatrist who had conducted a pre-trial examination of the defendant. The psychiatrist concluded that the defendant was a “very severe psychopath” with “no remorse or sorrow for what he has done,” and that, in essence, the defendant would be a dangerous threat to society in the future if not executed. Id. at 459-60, 101 S.Ct. at 1871-1872. The Supreme Court, limiting its inquiry to “the circumstances of th[e] case,” id. at 461, 101 S.Ct. at 1872, observed that the dangerousness question was “a critical issue at the sentencing hearing” and one “on which the State ha[d] the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 466, 101 S.Ct. at 1875. The Court concluded that the failure to provide the defendant with Miranda warnings prior to the interview, or to notify the defendant‘s counsel in advance as to the scope of the interview and allow counsel to advise the defendant as to “the significant decision of whether to submit to the examination and to what end the psychiatrist‘s findings could be employed,” id. at 471, 101 S.Ct. at 1877, violated Miranda as well as the defendant‘s sixth amendment right to counsel.
Baumann urges us to extend Estelle to the facts of this case. Reading his allegations liberally, his claim is that he insisted during the interview with the probation officer that he was innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted, and that the probation officer interpreted this profession of innocence as a lack of remorse upon which he justified a recommendation to the sentencing judge to “aggravate” the sentence imposed. This allegation has some similarity to the one advanced in Estelle. We first examine the Miranda question.
The government argues that Miranda, as interpreted in Estelle, is not applicable to this case because the information procured by the probation officer was not used to establish Baumann‘s guilt, but rather only to determine his sentence. While this argument is plausible, it was unmistakably rejected by the Court in Estelle. Citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1455, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (“the availability of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege does not turn upon the type of proceeding ... but upon the nature of the statement ... and the exposure which it invites“), the Court held:
We can discern no basis to distinguish between the guilt and the penalty phases of respondent‘s capital murder trial so far as the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege is concerned. Given the gravity of the decision to be made at the penalty phase, the State is not relieved of the obligation to observe fundamental constitutional guarantees. ... Any effort by the State to compel respondent to testify against his will at the sentencing hearing clearly would contravene the Fifth Amendment. Yet the State‘s attempt to establish respondent‘s future dangerousness by relying on the unwarned statements he made to [the psychiatrist] similarly infringes Fifth Amendment values.
451 U.S. at 462-63, 101 S.Ct. at 1872-1873 (footnotes and citations omitted). There is no question in this case but that the questioning of Baumann by the probation officer constituted “interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda. See United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1237-38 (9th Cir. 1981). The government argues, however,
We believe it appropriate to read Estelle narrowly. This is not a bifurcated jury proceeding involving the potential of the ultimate penalty, death. Nor is the question of “remorse” which Baumann raises nearly as critical an issue in this case as was the question of future dangerousness in Estelle. In order to impose the death sentence, the state in Estelle was required to demonstrate the existence of certain aggravating factors by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 268-76, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2954-2958, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976) (plurality opinion). There is no similar requirement in the sentencing phase of a trial under the federal mail fraud statute, a noncapital proceeding conducted before the district court and not a jury. We conclude that there is a substantial difference between a psychiatric examination of the defendant in a capital case which seeks to elicit evidence from the defendant relating to the critical aggravating factor of dangerousness, and a “routine” presentence interview, see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at 465, 101 S.Ct. at 1874, restricted to gathering information upon which the district court, in its discretion, may rely when imposing sentence. As we read Estelle, the Court‘s fifth amendment holding is limited
to the distinct circumstances of the bifurcated capital proceedings presented in that case. Id. at 465, 101 S.Ct. at 1874. The Court expressly cautioned that it did “not hold that the same Fifth Amendment concerns are necessarily presented by all types of interviews and examinations that might be ordered or relied upon to inform a sentencing determination.” Id. at 469 n.13, 101 S.Ct. at 1876 n.13 (emphasis added). Estelle, therefore, does not support Baumann‘s argument.
We must decide this issue by reference to the general purposes and policy of the Miranda decision. Ordinarily, custodial interrogation of a suspect is impermissible in the absence of the warnings directed by Miranda. See Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 345-47, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 1615-1616, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976). However, Miranda has never been applied, to our knowledge, to routine presentence interviews conducted for the benefit of a district judge in the exercise of his substantial discretion at sentencing. We see no reason to do so. As we observed recently:
Miranda was, and remains, a prophylactic device designed to protect the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights by criminal defendants. Absent procedural safeguards, custodial interrogation “contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual‘s will to resist and compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” Miranda v. Arizona, ...
United States v. Booth, supra, 669 F.2d at 1237. The Miranda safeguards, therefore, cannot be divorced from the practical concerns and policy considerations which gave rise to that seminal decision. See Beckwith v. United States, supra, 425 U.S. at 345-48, 96 S.Ct. at 1615-1617. Custodial interroga-
[T]he right to silence described in [the Miranda] warnings derives from the Fifth Amendment and adds nothing to it. Although Miranda‘s requirement of specific warnings creates a limited exception to the rule that the privilege must be claimed, the exception does not apply outside the context of the inherently coercive custodial interrogations for which it was designed. The warnings protect persons who, exposed to such interrogation without the assistance of counsel, otherwise might be unable to make a free and informed choice to remain silent.
Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 560-61, 101 S.Ct. 1358, 1364-1365, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980) (emphasis added).
Even assuming a technically custodial interrogation in the circumstances of this case, it was not the type of situation in which Miranda warnings are required in order to effectuate the exercise of the fifth amendment privilege. Baumann does not argue, nor is there any indication in the record, that the exercise of his fifth amendment right to silence was burdened, fettered, or impaired in any manner. There is no claim that his statements to the probation officer were involuntary in the constitutional sense. Indeed, Baumann testified to his complete innocence at trial, and merely reiterated those statements during the presentence interview. Nothing in the record suggests that this presentence interview or, more importantly, presentence interviews in general, entail pressures at all similar to those “which the Miranda Court found so inherently coercive as to require its holding.” Beckwith v. United States, supra, 425 U.S. at 347, 96 S.Ct. at 1617. To require Miranda warnings before such routine presentence interviews, therefore, would be to apply a principle “broader than that required to implement the policy of Miranda itself.” United States v. Booth, supra, 669 F.2d at 1237. We decline to do so. If we were to set aside Baumann‘s sentence on the record before us, we would “sanction an unwarranted interference with a function traditionally vested in the trial courts.” Roberts v. United States, supra, 445 U.S. at 561, 101 S.Ct. at 1365.
The Court in Estelle also ruled that the psychiatric examination involved in that case violated the defendant‘s sixth amendment right to counsel because it was a “critical stage” of the proceeding in which he was not “given prior opportunity to consult with counsel,” 451 U.S. at 470 n.14, 101 S.Ct. at 1877 n.14, and was “denied the assistance of his attorneys in making the significant decision of whether to submit to the examination....” Id. at 471, 101 S.Ct. at 1877. This brief portion of the Court‘s opinion is apparently based upon the sixth amendment right to counsel which inheres in post-indictment questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), provides a right to the presence of counsel during postindictment confrontations with the government in which the government “deliberately elicits” incriminating statements from the accused. The Court‘s citations to Massiah, United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), and United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), suggest that the Court applied a modified version of the Massiah right to the pretrial, post-indictment psychiatric interview before it, because the Court concluded that such an interview, at least in a bifurcated capital proceeding, is a “critical stage” of the proceeding in which the prior advice of counsel is essential to guarantee the fairness of the trial itself within the rule of United States v. Wade.
We understand the sixth amendment portion of Estelle, therefore, to be consistent with the general principle that the right to counsel attaches upon the commencement of adversary proceedings and applies to any critical stage of those proceedings where counsel‘s absence, or lack of advice, might
Because the sentencing phase of the noncapital case before us does not involve an issue which is nearly as critical as was the issue of dangerousness in Estelle, the presentence interview was not a “critical stage” of the aggregate proceedings against Baumann. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604-05, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964-2965, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (in noncapital cases, individualized sentencing procedures stem from public policy enacted into statutes, rather than the Constitution). Even if, as Baumann alleges, the probation officer recommended an aggravated sentence to the district judge because of the lack of remorse which he gathered from Baumann‘s responses during the interview, the district judge was not required to impose the maximum sentence or even the recommended sentence. A district judge has wide discretion in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. United States v. DeWald, 669 F.2d 590, 592 (9th Cir. 1982). He may consider all relevant facts in the defendant‘s personal history and occupation, United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 1979), and may also consider evidence which would be inadmissible at the trial itself. United States v. Larios, 640 F.2d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1981). Therefore, although Baumann may have been denied the advice of his attorney in making the “significant decision of whether to submit to the [interview],” Estelle, 451 U.S. at 470, 101 S.Ct. at 1877, any such denial was constitutionally insignificant. We hold that a routine presentence interview of an individual convicted of a noncapital federal offense is not, under Estelle and United States v. Wade, a critical stage of the proceeding in which counsel‘s presence, or advice, is necessary to protect the defendant‘s right to a fair trial.
VI
Baumann also contends that the district judge erred in failing to order an evidentiary hearing on his claim of “newly discovered evidence.” In an appendix to his section 2255 petition filed with the district court, Baumann presented the following: (1) a letter from Hood, in which Hood stated that all the contracts purchased by Bankers in 1972 “were in fact good contracts” and that Baumann “could not have had any knowledge [of] fenceposted contracts during that time as he was not purchasing any“; that the changes in the legal description of the land in “the Russell contract,” the subject of Count 28, were “made without the knowledge” of Baumann and that Baumann was not notified of these changes; and that “[a]ny contracts that [Baumann] purchased were with a guarantee by WLSCO [Western] to make any and all delinquent payments and to collect for themselves from the land buyer“; (2) a letter from Berkenkamp, the purchaser of the contract involved in Count 27, stating that the lot buyer “had paid off the contract and had a clear title to the property“; and (3) a payment record from Reinken, the lot buyer on the contract involved in Count 27.
The magistrate concluded that the allegations of new evidence could not be reviewed since a motion for a new trial would not be timely under
We need not decide whether the district judge was correct in his reasons for this holding because we reverse on a different ground. The necessary predicate to
Baumann‘s argument is that the evidence he presented in his petition to the district court was “newly discovered.” However, each piece of evidence he relied on relates directly to arguments which his counsel made to the jury in his opening and closing statements and which Baumann testified to on direct examination. Baumann‘s defense was that the contracts underlying Counts 26 and 27 were in fact good contracts, and not fenceposted contracts, because actual lot buyers existed who had signed the contracts and were making the requisite periodic payments on them.8 His defense to the charge involved in Count 28 was that the letter to Anderson merely notified him of a default on his contract and that Baumann had no knowledge of any alteration in the legal description of the underlying real estate. Similarly, his defense to the charge involved in Count 29, the “dunning letter” sent to Western, was that the letter was sent in accordance with a recourse agreement entered into between Western and
This does not end our inquiry. Baumann‘s evidence is not newly discovered because allowing criminal defendants to raise such allegations after a judgment of conviction has been entered and affirmed on direct appeal would permit them to “sandbag” the fairness of the trial by withholding or failing to seek material, probative evidence and later attempting to collaterally attack their convictions under
product of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, a separate claim which he also raised in his
On this record, we are unable to determine whether Baumann‘s allegations are correct. There has been no hearing on Baumann‘s claim that his attorney failed to interview prosecution witnesses and prevented Baumann from doing so. We can determine, however, that if true, his allegations could establish constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice to his defense. See Cooper v. Fitzharris,
We therefore reverse the district court‘s dismissal of the so-called newly discovered evidence claims and remand for an evidentiary hearing. During this hearing, Baumann should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that if his attorney had rendered competent assistance, he would have elicited the evidence which Baumann has presented in his petition, and that the absence of this evidence from his trial prejudiced his defense. In addition, he should be permitted to offer proof supporting his claim that his attorney‘s failure effectively to cross-examine Rotola and Howard, the witnesses who apparently provided evidence of Baumann‘s involvement in other alleged fenceposting schemes which were not charged in the indictment, constituted a constitutional violation. As this testimony formed much of the basis for our prior affirmance of Baumann‘s conviction on direct appeal, United States v. McDonald, supra, 576 F.2d at 1360 & n.17, we point out that this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is one which is classically cognizable in a section 2255 proceeding.
VII
We do not direct the district court on remand to grant the relief Baumann seeks. Pursuant to
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part in the judgment and dissenting in part:
I agree with the result reached by the majority that the record conclusively shows that the indictment was not defective for duplicity and that the district court, without ordering an evidentiary hearing, properly rejected this claim on the merits.
I concur in Section IV of the majority‘s opinion, which reverses summary dismissal of that portion of the Section 2255 petition relating to the government‘s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
Section V of the majority‘s opinion covers certain claims of error asserted before the district court by Baumann with respect to his sentencing. One claim involves a writ-
Baumann also argues that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were abridged by the manner in which his presentence interview was conducted. He contends that the interview with the court‘s probation officer constituted custodial interrogation and that before the interview the probation officer should have given Baumann the warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He also asserts that the absence of his attorney at the interview violated his right to the assistance of counsel.
Contrary to the majority‘s view, as expressed in Section V, I believe that the sentencing judge should be asked to reconsider these Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims in light of Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), decided while the instant case was on appeal to our court. Therefore, I would not actively reach for these constitutional issues but would reverse and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Estelle stressed these factors in holding that respondent‘s Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination was violated:
- When the trial court ordered a psychiatric interview and examination of Smith to determine his competency to stand trial, he was in custody in the Dallas County Jail. Id. at 467, 101 S.Ct. at 1875.
- When he talked to the psychiatrist, Smith was unaware that his words could be used to assist the prosecution. Id. at 466, 101 S.Ct. at 1874.
- When testifying for the prosecution at the penalty phase on the crucial issue of Smith‘s future dangerousness, the psychiatrist became “an agent of the State recounting unwarned statements made in a post-arrest custodial setting.” Id. at 467, 101 S.Ct. at 1875.
Whether these factors or others indicating custodial interrogation existed during Baumann‘s post-conviction interview by the court‘s probation officer should await the results of the district court‘s determination based on an adequate record.
The majority recognizes that the existence of custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes depends on the totality of circumstances involved in a given case. Maj. Op. at n.5. It is for this very reason that the majority‘s formulation of a per se rule, Maj. Op., at 575-576, is inappropriate and ill-advised.
The Court in Estelle additionally held that respondent Smith was denied his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel before submitting to a pretrial psychiatric interview. The Court emphasized that Smith‘s lawyers were unaware, until after the interview, that the trial judge had appointed a psychiatrist to examine their client and determine his competency. Id. at 458 n.5, 101 S.Ct. at 1871 n.5.
In the instant case, the trial transcript does not show whether defense counsel was present when the trial judge fixed the time for a probation and sentence hearing and directed Baumann to report to the probation officer. Nor does the transcript indicate what legal advice, if any, Baumann may have received from his counsel in anticipation of the presentence interview by the probation officer, or whether his counsel was present during the interview.
In the past, when faced with similar Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues on a record inadequate for a proper legal decision, instead of announcing a per se rule, we have remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to develop a “complete and enlightening ... factual background.” Jones v. Cardwell, 588 F.2d 279, 281 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 965, 99 S.Ct. 1513, 59 L.Ed.2d 780 (1979).1 I think we should follow this prudent course relative to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues presented in this case. I discern no compelling reason for us to expatiate on these constitutional issues before they are re-examined by the district judge on the basis of a complete record.
I also disapprove much of the dicta that pervades Section V of the majority‘s opinion. For example, the majority says that as it reads Estelle, “the court‘s fifth amendment holding is limited to the distinct circumstances of the bifurcated capital proceedings presented in that case.” Maj. Op., at 576-577. But the Court did not place any such limitation on its decision when it said: “Of course, we do not hold that the same Fifth Amendment concerns are necessarily presented by all types of interviews and examinations that might be ordered or relied upon to inform a sentencing determination.” 451 U.S. at 469 n.13, 101 S.Ct. at 1876 n.13. The Court‘s words could fairly be read to suggest that under certain circumstances Fifth Amendment concerns may indeed be implicated by a probation officer‘s presentence interview of a defendant.
The majority seems to suggest that something more than custodial interrogation is necessary before Miranda warnings are required to protect a person‘s Fifth Amendment privilege. Maj. Op., at 576-577. Miranda, to the contrary, clearly states that certain prescribed warnings should be given before custodial interrogation takes place. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612-1613, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
The majority also holds “that a routine presentence interview of an individual con-
victed of a noncapital federal offense is not ... a critical stage of the proceeding in which counsel‘s presence, or advice, is necessary to protect the defendant‘s right to a fair trial“—which I assume includes fair sentencing procedures. Maj. Op., at 578. I disagree with this view. As a practical matter, the presentence interview with the probation officer is an important and critical stage of the proceedings. The results of the interview could have significant effects on the probation officer‘s recommendations and on the ultimate sentence imposed on the defendant by the court. Defense attorneys worth their salt know the importance of a favorable presentence report and are aware of the necessity of advising and counselling their client before the interview, the results of which might settle the client‘s fate. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1966).
Finally, I concur in the conclusions expressed in Section VI of the majority‘s opinion. I agree that Baumann‘s newly discovered evidence claim lacks merit because the underlying facts were within Baumann‘s knowledge at the time of trial.2 I also agree that Baumann‘s ineffective assistance of counsel allegations are not so patently frivolous or palpably incredible as to warrant summary dismissal.
Notes
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing
On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing. After finding that the state court had considered evidence obtained in violation of Jones‘s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, the district court granted the petition for habeas corpus. This court agreed that the defendant was entitled to claim the Fifth Amendment privilege at the presentence interview and therefore affirmed the district court‘s decision. Jones v. Cardwell, 686 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1982).If it plainly appears from the face of the motion and any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the movant to be notified. Otherwise, the judge shall order the United States Attorney to file an answer or other pleading within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate.
Several courts have considered the question of the admissibility of extrajudicial statements made by defendants under varying circumstances to their probation or parole officers. See, e.g., United States v. McKenzie, 601 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856, 93 S.Ct. 136, 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); People v. Harrington, 2 Cal.3d 991, 88 Cal.Rptr. 161, 471 P.2d 961 (1970). I would not invade this troublesome area until armed with a complete factual record.(1) When Made. The probation service of the court shall make a presentence investigation and report to the court before the imposition of sentence ... unless, with the permission of the court, the defendant waives a presentence investigation and report ....
The report shall not be submitted to the court or its contents disclosed to anyone unless the defendant has pleaded guilty ... or has been found guilty, except that a judge may, with the written consent of the defendant, inspect a presentence report at any time.
(3) Disclosure.
(A) Before imposing sentence the court shall upon request permit the defendant, or his counsel if he is so represented, to read the report of the presentence investigation exclusive of any recommendation as to sentence .... [T]he court shall afford the defendant or his counsel an opportunity to comment thereon and, at the discretion of the court, to introduce evidence or other information relating to any alleged factual inaccuracy contained in the presentence report.