United States v. Charles Green

profits Frigid. to Be- half his give to HAYS, Circuit Judge: 1972 Valentine continued 1965 and tween he before. Green, merchandise as to steal Coughlin, Charles Al- Raymond splitting profits his Grasso, Pacilio, tried to avoid He Neil Carmine Pic- bert pressed when he occa- Frigid but cora, appeal judg- Fred from with Smith some of his stolen sionally turned over of conviction entered in the Unit- ments * (ret.), Supreme Appellants along sit- United States Court with Of the 16 co-defendants were designation. charged ting in a fourteen-count indictment with conspiracy and with substantive violations of (1970) states, part: 1. 18 § U.S.C. 549, 659, 1962, §§ U.S.C. and 2314 embezzles, steals, unlawfully Bencivenga, Lester, Lofton, “Whoever or Defendants takes, conceals, away, pleaded Ruggiero guilty carries or or fraud to one count of sea- deception any sys- pipeline or obtains from food theft and testified for the Government. car, tem, wagon, motortruck, defendants, including Pasquale railroad or oth- Seven Macchi- vehicle, any storage Smith, or from tank or facili- appellant er ty, role and Alfred brother of station, house, Smith, platform depot separate station or Fred were severed for a trial. steamboat, vessel, wharf, any or from or or At the close of the Government’s case the aircraft, any terminal, airport, air air- dismissed four counts in the indictment navigation facility charging (inter- craft terminal or air with violation of 18 U.S.C. § any goods transportation goods), intent to convert to his own use state of stolen four moving part (theft or chattels as or which are a counts under 18 § U.S.C. from cus- foreign custody), constitute an or which interstate or toms and one count under 18 U.S.C. shipment freight, express, prop- (pattern racketeering or other activity). § 1962 All erty; against Conte, or Danduono, counts defendants buys “Whoever or receives or has in his were also dismissed. Questel chattels, possession any goods acquitted such or defendants Bamonte and John Mac- knowing against the same to have been embezzled acquit- chirole of all counts them and . or stolen Coughlin ted all other than remaining “Shall each case be against fined not more than substantive counts $5,000 imprisoned or not more than ten them. years, or both . . . delivery book. The effect of and codefend- ers in appellant Piccora goods to storage changes, which were attributed to Questel Frigid at cold ant drivers, pro- increase the frequently Frigid’s Pacilio Appellant room. unfilled listed of Macchi- cases of seafood portion on behalf spoke to Valentine tally. half According Macchirole to Government urging pay him role selling leaving his the drivers after Valentine was witnesses of whatever comply by cargo by send- would “slack” the remov- pier Valentine own. packages to Macchirole of seafood from full cases money ing or merchandise ing correspond with the altered tallies. through Pacilio. packages extra then be sold seafood the drivers stole Until by the drivers themselves either trucks loading extra cases onto Frigid. paying off piers and sometimes tally the testi- supposed who The Government introduced the checkers Frigid three as well mony employees testified of several loads. Valentine appellants handwriting expert ap- link the incidents which as a specific in Piccora, Pacilio, Smith, Grasso, phase conspir- and with this pellants of the Lester, acy. pleaded assisted him in the theft of Co-defendant who each Green theft, by guilty either a checker or to seafood that aft- paying off testified seafood slacking unloading disposing April and of stolen a case in March or by er paid he sold it and half his goods. Pacilio money Pacilio took the and told profits. devised Beginning in 1972 drivers the time give that next he should the him stealing of which a new method seafood Questel or goods to Piccora co-defendant complicity require the of the did they get could price a better for because advantage and which took of checkers in April May times or Lester it. Several piers for load- used at the procedures the those instructions. followed When arrives ing trucks. a truckdriver the Brooklyn Anthony Pier watchman Bencivenga, another co-de- pass pho- him and gate pleaded guilty out a who to seafood makes fendant theft, regiscope with machine. that tographs April him testified 1972 Pacilio clearing getting the driver loads with half the After customs concerned the makes out a the black profits truck while checker drivers who he sus- his tally stealing. night ticket includes the tally pected ticket. The were One Pacilio number, brother, appellant license company the truck’s asked Smith and his number, Smith, Alfred and the number of cases to show Ben- plate co-defendant civenga load. The also notes on altered tallies. He then in the checker tally recoopered, the them that Bencivenga the number of told would be in filled, charge stealing. the number of later partially cases and About a week the Bencivenga contained in each. After introduced the other packages he signs tally Frigid the he returns it and checker drivers told them that Benci- goes help who to the customs venga the driver back them with their slacks office, delivery then inspector get and that half of whatev- and tally delivery the is also told to where entered er stole. Piccora was representative company, keep Bencivenga gave A of the whatever him in book. driver, book, usually signs for Pacilio. freezer ' surrendering pier, leaves the driver Document examiner Drew Sommer- gate pass way out. his tally ford testified that a Pier 11 established 25, 1972, As Government dated had been altered tallies through the introduction of the Coughlin. appellant Bencivenga testi- checkers, testimony the nota- he, and the later day Coughlin, fied cargo were Frigid on the tallies up tions and the Smith brothers made slack changed time frequently shipment between so cases would corre- and the they were made the checkers spond to altered tallies and the re- surplus sulting the tallies were entered the driv- could be time sold. Sommer- prepared also testified that tallies ford L.Ed.2d 1039 Unit August September Sep- v. Geaney, ed States 22, 1972, had been altered tember Bencivenga Coughlin. testified that originally arranged 22 he September had testimony concerning Valentine’s appellant help Coughlin to send Green to meeting by Pasquale called Macchirole up without make slacks for that established the framework for the con- having Frigid, but that to come back to spiracy. testimony His also linked each plans changed Coughlin appellants exception with the eventually brought goods back the stolen Coughlin pre-1972 activities in fur- Frigid Bencivenga to the freezer at conspiracy. therance The testimo- instructed.3 Bencivenga ny of and other Government witnesses established the conspiracy Appellants argue that the evidence through continued 1972 and with was insufficient to any establish form of participating. each prior conspiracy to 1972 and that joined The fact that new members non-hearsay evidence was sufficient to conspiracy as time went on and old post-1972 conspiracy establish a only may dropped members out does not regard with Pacilio and preclude a finding single, that a ongoing They contend, therefore, Smith. that it conspiracy existed. United States v. was error for the court to admit evi- Nasse, dence of activity criminal which took 1970), prior place to 1972 and that it was also 927, (1971). 28 L.Ed.2d 217 We hold that error to utilize co-conspirator excep- since there was non-hearsay sufficient tion to the hearsay rule to admit out-of- a conspiracy evidence of including each court alleged statements of co-conspira- appellants, of dating from 1965 tors into against appellants evidence oth- through 1973, evidence of crimi- related er than Pacilio and Smith. activity throughout nal that period and Appellants’ contentions are the out-of-court statements of co-con- without merit. The Government spirators intro were admissible.5 ample non-hearsay testimony duced to conspiracy Appellants establish a dating argue at also least through from 1965 1973 and evidence was including insufficient to sustain a the appellants.4 each of for conspiracy The out-of- conviction because there court co-conspirators statements of no made was evidence of an intent to steal in conspiracy furtherance of the foreign were disagree. commerce. We See, thus g., admissible. e. United A substantive violation of 18 U.S.C. Nixon, 683, 701, v. States 418 U.S. not require knowledge 659 does of the § hearsay indictment, testimony judge Cough- 3. Count 10 of the as well. If the does of which convicted, Sep- jury charged him with the allow the to lin was consider the out-of-court statements, tember theft. we must assume that he made the necessary finding only and our task is to de Appellants argue that we must assume that grounds doing he cide if had reasonable so. judge only appellants found Pacilio district Geaney, 1116, See United States v. to and Smith have been involved in the con- (2d 1969), cert. 397 U.S. only spiracy because those were the (1970). 90 S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d 539 specifically he mentioned when he ruled dur- reject 5. We also the contention that there was ing conspiracy trial that a had been estab- explicit agreement evidence of an insufficient purpose admitting for the lished of the state- part appellant each to sustain their co-conspirators. disagree. ments If conspiracy. convictions “The existence of by alleged co-conspira- out-of-court statements agreement may by be shown an circumstances conspir- tors are testified to in the course of a indicating that criminal defendants acted in trial, acy may evi- the court wait until goal.” Hamling to achieve a common concert conspiracy dence is in to if determine has States, 87, 124, v. sufficiently non-hearsay been established 41 L.Ed.2d 590 jury evidence allow to consider planned July to leave for Canada the had foreign character interstate departure Houle, delay could her for a 490 F.2d 19 but v. goods. United States days. judge responded by The 417 few tell- 1973), (2d her that the case would be submitted ing 1141 F.2d L.Ed.2d U.S. jury by Tuesday, July Tyers, v. to the States (1974); United Tuesday (2d promised would be court L.Ed.2d last that she her court and unnecessary leaving therefore on Wednesday. is as- (1974). It Similar knowledge given juror to estab- No. 11. in order prove such surances with defense conspiracy violation. a later discussion counsel lish 671, 95 S.Ct. Feola, judge that he only the district stated States jury get that the United meant case Cir., Tuesday, Podell, not that their deliberations States Furthermore, have to be concluded jury Tuesday. jury well would could counsel stated that the relating to Defense from evidence have inferred Tuesday impression that would defi- and the lading, procedures, customs bills nitely day, sug- be its last but no one did thefts the site clarify that the gested foreign commerce. to steal from intend only getting Houle, supra that it assured of at 170. Cf. United Tuesday. the morning On the court II. prom- jury, submitted the case to In his charge, ised. the district is that primary contention Appellants’ instructed members of the because to a new trial are entitled the case decide on the evidence and to jury’s a time limit on court set to each arguments listen other’s with an a ver- thereby coerced deliberations open agree mind to see if could this claim facts relevant dict. conscience.” “good No time limit was Before commencement follows: are as deliberations, set on the and noth- trial, the court excused three ing was said about meet any the need to the three request and seated jury of deadline. sort received the jur- places. other in their No alternates at 12:40 P.M. and returned a verdict as that to serve available ors were P.M. at 9:50 by the Despite objections alternates. a post-trial for co-defend- motion asked and counsel Government Macchirole, ground a new trial that decided the the court ant John proceed trial a court coerced verdict. With the without alternates. July of motion expected and on notice submitted an longer than took juror Canegallo6 that she affidavit from stating 5 told the 15 No. juror jurors in 6. The affidavit four conviction of all the stated: favor of on defendants all counts. trial, jurors “During the five and eleven “Thereafter another vote was taken and they known to the made Court that had va- jurors acquittal now ten were in favor of 24, of plans country July cation leave the on jurors (jurors all defendants and two two 1974 and were that assured Court twelve) firmly holding were and out for 23, con- they beyond July would not serve of all viction defendants on all counts. jury’s 23, began July “The deliberations on discussion, jurors “After much two p. and jurors 1974 at about 12:40 m. Both five change position twelve would firm quite eleven made it all and clear to guilty occurred, on all of counts. jurors that no matter what above, “Considering leaving would be on and the time their vacations to Cana- was 24, approximately p. m., thought morning I of 7:30 that da on fur- poll jury, ther discussion was “After one of were useless and on there three separate jury eight jurors acquittal I in favor of all de- occasions told the foreman of jury report Judge exception that the with the I felt should Costan- fendants de- jury hung jury guilty hope- that the tino was a and fendant RAYMOND was COUGHLIN lessly charge conspiracy deadlocked. of the of and there were

235 a compromise by jurors verdict was to consider statements relating jurors acquit- subjective either to the who were for ten effect such between influ- except Coughlin might ences of all defendants have had on them or tal processes through were for conviction mental jurors two who which they ar- at on all counts. He rived their verdict. of defendants See Mattox v. States, 49, compromise supra United at that the re- 13 claimed S.Ct. 148 — 50; Howard, obstinacy juror of 12 in United No. States v. 506 F.2d sult 865, (5th 1975); 868-69 insisting conviction Downey fear v. Peyton, 236, 1971); 451 F.2d jurors reported to court that 239 if the States, v. United they might 77, deadlocked have Miller 403 F.2d 83 1968); overnight, (2d Cir. v. stay interfering with the n.11 Rotondo va- Isthmian Co., Steamship 581, 243 jurors (2d Cir.) of 5 and 11. The plans 583 cation curiam), denied, (per 834, cert. grounds the motion on the court denied 355 U.S. 53, (1957). were not its statements coercive S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 45 This jur- in context and that a of when read number occasions has strong public affidavit should not be considered in stressed that or’s interest determining processes integrity the mental jury verdicts jurors through protection at which the arrived its re- harassment quires that investigation subjec- verdict. into the tive motivations processes and mental Appellants argue that the dis jurors permitted. not be v. See Miller trict have considered the States, court should supra 82, n.11; proof of the coercive effect affidavit Crosby, United States 294 F.2d earlier court’s statements. cert. disagree. The federal courts have re 82 S.Ct. (1962); that a jected the iron-clad rule will Dioguardi, Cf. United States impeach its be heard to own ver (2d Cir.), never Pless, 264, 829, McDonald v. dict. U.S. (1974). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 268-69, 59 L.Ed. Canegallo’s We hold that affidavit was States, (1915); Mattox 146 properly rejected as a basis for determin- 36 L.Ed. 917 U.S. ing the effect the court’s statements Jorgenson Machinery v. York Ice jurors. on the minds of the (2d Cir.), Corp., affidavit, considering Even However, jurors L.Ed. 349 while the it appears that arrived at accepted testimony compromise courts verdict not because the trial impermissible to establish that judge had set time limit on their delib brought influences were to bear contrary outside but on the erations because see, g., jury, a e. Mattox v. on United they thought judge that the would send States, 148-49, supra, at lengthy, prob 146 U.S. 13 back them for further and futile, a (newspaper 50 on mur ably they S.Ct. editorials if reported deliberations consis; .ase), they thej that ¿ntly have refused were Evi- der to him deadlocked. point, juror jurors “At this twelve stand of said if two and twelve for that we convic- Judge defendants; possibly so jurors informed the that he could tion all the fact all that except myself against order informing us back to deliberate for were six more the may stay Judge hours and even seeing order us to that we were over- and deadlocked night. jurors ample freely When five that we did not and eleven time to heard this, deliberate, they immediately protested jurors acquittal the ten to the for jurors. except again Jurors five and defendants eleven defendant stated COUGHLIN finally sought that evening compromise to leave reached this a their planned jurors very p. vacations were verdict with two and to start the twelve at 9:30 day. next m. Juror twelve then remarked that pressing he did not “If there had not been care if the a time deliberations deliberations, plans. lasted for I another month as limit would have he had no held out “Therefore, hung jury jurors for a fact but due to the that the facts stated I five and did not evening; eleven had do so.” to leave that the firm 236 jurors that the dence explicit own either with an time placed limit agreed compromise to a verdict directly does jury’s deliberations, not the Goff Jorgenson warrant a new trial. States, v. York 623, v. United (10th F.2d Machinery Corp., supra Ice at 1971) (1 hour); 435. Cf. Cir. see United States v. Lines, Motley, Inc. v. Grace Landsdown, F.2d 164, 460 F.2d (4th 169 n.3 1028, (2d 1971); 1031-32 Cir. 1972) (10 United minutes), Cir. or with a charge Grieco, 414, v. States F.2d which taken in context was likely give to 1958) (per curiam), Cir. cert. jury impression the the that it was more L.Ed.2d 572 important quick to be than to be

(1959) (juror’s motive for agreeing thoughtful. to the United v. Flannery, States grounds reversal, verdict is not (1st 451 F.2d 1971); ab- Cir. coercion). Diamond, sent actual States 430 F.2d 696 — 97 1970); (5th Burroughs v. United States, Appellants argue in the alter (10th 365 F.2d wholly case, that the aside from affida In this native the court did not vit, they are entitled to a new trial on jury instruct the to decide the case with- that the court’s statements ground Furthermore, in a certain the time. inherently agree coercive. We that charge were court’s final jury to the clearly approach proper this case is to placed emphasis on a reasoned deci- whether court’s state according evidence, determine sion not on coercive, regardless ments time constraints. therefore hold jurors. effect on the Mil subjective See the district court’s statements to States, supra at 83 n.11. v. United jury, context, ler were not coercive. However, we hold that the statements Miller, See context, judge, taken in district did (2d Cir.), jury a time limit on deliberations set not (1973). 38 L.Ed.2d 100 inherently were not coercive. At no time did the judge district in- III. struct it must return Appellants claim that the dis verdict a certain time. On con- trict court made a number of erroneous trary, jurors instructed rulings which warrant First, reversal. the case solely evidence, decide they argue it was reversible error arguments listen to the of their fellow the court to allow Government wit jurors, and to decide whether could ness Drew Sommerford testify as a good agree.” “with conscience The re- handwriting expert. We disagree. marks made on jurors 15 to 5 and question of whether qualifies witness 11 were assurances that he expert as an is within the discretion of interfere with their vacation judge. See, trial g., e. United States beyond July plans purpose His Burden, time clearly was not to instruct 1974); Trice, United States v. jury as to the course deliberations, of its (9th Cir.), urge rather but to bear him a little longer with prod At the time he testified Mr. Sommerford lawyers on both proceed sides to expedi- employed as an examiner ques tiously. When received the case by tioned documents the Bureau of Alco July only duty its by as stated hol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the United - was to court decide properly. the case Treasury. States -He had completed a Appellants cite a study number of cases program in document examination proposition that it is three-year coercive for the and a apprenticeship in the judge field, to set a time limit trial on the and he qualified had been as a However, deliberations. in full-fledged each document examiner for 14 those cases the courts were of dealing months. Handwriting identification was major training experi- part a of his At least one attorney defense doubted certainly Bencivenga’s It was reasonable to con- the need for testimony ence. con- qualifications cerning the psychiatric based on his clude consultations on testimony ground that the jury would aid the already Sommerford’s “knows crazy” he’s and that it jury. district court therefore did “thinks he is a anyway.” liar In by allowing abuse its discretion him view of the not extensive testify expert cross-examination on question as an witness. See 340, Bencivenga’s Dellinger, credibility, v. States F.2d United uncertain nature of the (7th Cir. cert. defense’s offer proof, 383 970, U.S. possible and the prejudicial effects, L.Ed.2d 706 we hold that the court did not abuse its Appellants argue also that the district restricting discretion in the scope by pre- committed reversible error court cross-examination.7 Natvig See v. Unit- cross-examining Ben- venting them States, ed U.S.App.D.C. 236 F.2d civenga alleged on his consultations with (1956), object- psychiatrist. The Government a (1957).8 as irrelevant questioning ed to the both inquiry the district court barred ground physi- it violated the

on the IV. ground on the cian-patient privilege and Finally, contend that proper scope it exceeded district court should declared a mis- cross-examination. trial because of numerous instances of judge district has broad alleged prosecutorial misconduct. We restricting discretion in the scope of find number of these claims to be to- g., cross-examination. E. United States tally frivolous. Several other claims in- Kahn, (2d Cir.), 472 F.2d questionable volve conduct part on the prosecutor. However, in each L.Ed.2d Mahler, United States such instance the effectively court cured (2d 363 F.2d 676-78 Cir. prejudice may whatever have otherwise 1966). In proof, his offer of defense by admonishing prosecutor resulted Bencivenga’s counsel stated that testimo by instructing to disregard ny psychiatric might about his treatment improper remarks. We therefore “help question credibility.” his While ordering find no basis for a new trial on particular the court did not allow this grounds prosecutorial misconduct. questioning, permit line of it did exten generally Bivona, See Bencivenga sive cross-examination of (2d 1973). 445-47 which the defense attacked his credibili We have argu- considered the other others, ty grounds, among that he ments raised and find thief, was an habitual he had motive them to be without merit.9 lie, he prior had made inconsistent statements, memory suspect. his was Affirmed. light holding, defendants, 7. agreed this represent we need not reach Verdiramo’s question Bencivenga privi- of whether clients in his absence. All of Verdiramo’s leged questions including to refuse explicitly to answer about his clients Smith waived their psychiatrist. right consultations present. with a But see to have him The next Mancuso, United States v. Smith informed the court that he wished to 1971); Mullings, States v. have Lester cross-examined his own coun- 176 n.3 attorneys. sel as well as the other defense However, when Verdiramo returned on the fol- Appellant Smith also claims that the district day, lowing permission he did not ask for by proceeding court erred with the cross-ex- reopen may the cross-examination. Smith amination of Government witness Lester in the prejudiced by now claim that he was Verdira- disagree. absence of his counsel. We On mo’s absence. counsel, Verdiramo, June 25 Smith’s Mr. in- Appellant Coughlin formed argues he would be unable to that the court im- day. Attorneys permissibly next DeLuca amended the indictment elimi- Margulies, representing nating and who were the names of certain of his co-defend- When Juror No. 11 then advised that (concur- MANSFIELD, Judge Circuit too, she, supposed go was to on vacation ring): following week the court made the the re- majority’s view disagree I with the stating promise, promised “I identical judge’s fixing of a time garding the trial by Tuesday No. the case her 5] [Juror upon the deliberations. limit be be over and out of view, judge improperly set a my by Wednesday next week. ” Is that here trial completion limit for time you, with too? Juror No. 11 re- okay deliberations, that in with the result

jury (Tr. 3954). okay”. “That will be plied: complex required which over case this jury to for trial was forced weeks The case was jury submitted to the within 12 hours. a verdict reach Tuesday, July 1974 at p. m., 12:40 leaving the jury less than 12 hours to 15, 1974, July after trial had been On deliberate if the trial should ad- weeks, for more than 9 progress promise. here to his It expressions of is true judge, response to that be- trial jurors re- one of the twelve concern submitting fore the case jury to the plans, promised her garding her vacation judge gave the charge standard with re- he would finish the Tues- jurors’ spect duties, deliberation day, July 23rd so that she could leave on including duty not to surrender an by Wednesday, July her vacation conviction, duty to listen honest to colloquy prom- in which this 1974.1 other, duty each not to adhere ise was made was as follows: position stubbornly to a shown to be er- However, judge’s promise roneous. THE COURT . . . leaving” would “be Friday, “If we didn’t finish on more out “would be of here” Wednesday, likely by Monday we than would finish 24th, well could have been reason- Tuesday following week. or ably interpreted jurors as mean- give Tuesday? You will me until ing expected by the court 5: Yes.' “JUROR NO. hurry up to their deliberations and reach How does that “THE COURT: sound? a verdict on July 23rd, or else they would be discharged. Jurors who needed with That is fine NO. 5: “JUROR time more for deliberations respect with me, Judge. to the extensive evidence heard over ten RQSEN: fair, very is “MR. That complex in this weeks case would thus Judge. deprived be of the opportunity my promise “THE That is COURT: careful deliberation to which they were not, you going If it’s are to you. be entitled and which the case deserved. leaving Tuesday will the last be — you leaving are here. You will be reached p. its verdict at 9:50 Wednesday, m., I promise approximately make two hours before the (Tr. you.” by the deadline fixed court. Whether decision, reading making. ants when the substantive counts to was of its own line At jury. trial, any testimony The names were of co-defendants before the outset taken, against either on trial with the court used all three alternates fill excused, jurors guilt places leaving sufficient whom evidence of had not been who were supra. delay Eliminating See note Rather introduced. no alternates. than trial until permissible such names was a excision could of sur- additional for the summoned alternates, chose, plusage charges since it did not add to the of more selection the court against remaining defendants. See of the risk after that loss of another discussion Musgrave, during long juror trial could lead a dec- mistrial, Cir.), proceed jurors. laration of with 12 predicament 1. The in which the court found itself, promising which resulted in its a dead- if would been different

the result had not faced with a jurors been America, UNITED STATES of we cannot How- determine. deadline Plaintiff-Appellant, ever, regardless of what the result would if the am- court had have been allowed improp- it was time deliberations ple Angel Miguel CARRIZOZA-GAXIOLA, put pres- the trial to have er Defendant-Appellee. to ar- this fashion sure No. 74-2968. time, by given a verdict a rive at Diamond, United States Court Appeals, 695 — 97 F.2d Ninth Circuit. 1970). (5th Cir. June implicit suggestion, al- . . “. unintended,

though was that doubtless Rehearing Denied Oct. important quick more to be it thoughtful.”

than Flannery, States v. F.2d (1st the trial fix-

Despite court’s erroneous deliberations, a time limit

ing in the

I concur result reached defendants, since the

majority, either as strategy

a matter or for other reasons themselves, acquiesced known

best table

the time fixed court.

Although counsel for defendant John

Macchirole, acquitted, who was did at express apprehension point

one about the the July

coerciveness 23rd deadline he steps corrected, no have the

took error by requesting

such court to in-

struct it should feel

compelled to reach a verdict 23rd if it did not

and that reach a verdict it have to continue deliberations request

thereafter. If a for such in- made, had been trial judge

struction granted it, well have

might since the indicates

record that he was under the impression, notwithstanding erroneous earlier, unequivocal promise

his merely he had

jury, jur- advised the “they would have the

ors

Tuesday [July and not that 23rd]” reach a decision on that date and Wednesday.

leave on Absent clear ob- by

jection request defendants instruction,

for a curative the issue was Indiviglio, United States v.

waived. 15 L.Ed.2d 663

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Charles Green

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Aug 29, 1975

Citation: 523 F.2d 229

Docket Number: 1005, 1006, Dockets 75-1037, 75-1074

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.