*1 America, STATES UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee, BARRETT, Defendant-
Edward J. Appellant.
No. 73-1477. Appeals,
United States Court of
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Jan. 1974. Nov.
Decided 1974.
Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec.
Rehearing Denied Jan. *2 County County has of Cook Clerk purchasing responsibility in- voting
suring machines. Attorney County had State’s of Cook opinion competitive rendered *3 pur- required bidding in the not voting as chase of machines inasmuch uniformity important it to maintain County’s precincts. in all of the Since pur- already been 900 machines had Voting Shoup from Machine Cor- chased Shoup poration, and no one other than machines, Foran, comparable Robert E. Thomas A. sold situa- Wiss and the Chicago, III., defendant-appellant. adaptable competitive for tion not to bidding. president of Cook The the Thompson, Atty., Gary James R. U. S. Commissioners, County Board of which Webb, L. and Dan K. Asst. Starkman U. management responsible is for of the Attys., Chicago, 111., plaintiff-ap- for S. County, the of Cook testified affairs pellee. gov- opinion that the 1954 continued to HASTINGS, Before Senior Circuit purchase voting ern of as machines SPRECHER, Judge, and STEVENS late as 1971. Judges. Circuit “you opinion 1954 that stated SPRECHER, Judge. Circuit Shoup request from the Vot- a bid ing any only,” but bid appeal Machine Co. that of the con- This review seeks County Barrett, required approval County of viction of Edward County County, Illinois, of Board. and then of from Clerk Clerk County president testi- Board 1955 for violation of 18 U.S.C. § voting (mail fraud),1 four fied that 1952 1967 1341 U.S.C. 18 § covering racketeering 1,400 ma- (interstate machine contracts in travel aid by (at- enterprises) were to the Board chines submitted and 26 U.S.C. § County Clerk, tax). that unani- tempt to evade income 1. Whoever more intent merce or uses fraudulent cording knowingly place than five or therefrom, the Postal so rized cuting such promises ing scheme or artifice to having . Section Section . thing money depository matter . than do, to— person devised or to the direction whatever years, commerce, travels places causes . or any $1,000 scheme pretenses, Service, or . property to whom it or both.” provides for mail in . such matter provides to be thing, is directed to be sent interstate or any post intending including or artifice or for defraud, or facility imprisoned by means delivered in representations, shall be matter, any thereon, takes part: purpose office or or addressed, or or . in interstate part: be delivered or by mail devise for obtain- mail, . attempting “Whoever, or fined not thing, not delivered false . receives of exe- matter at autho- more com- “(a) any any ac- by or or or more than than 5 evade son who costs and thereafter n payment form be fined not more than Section the laws “(b) carry on, “(3) otherwise agement, “(1) any unlawful ful . not [*] . any activity; or defeat distribute . prosecution.” more than . years, It willfully thereof of the acts sxxecified bribery $10,000, establishment, . or facilitate [*] the State or . provides in performs or activity, shall any promote, 'unlawful attempts both, five ... St proceeds tax $10,000 or imprisoned ... in which committed. years, together or manage, part: attempts ... promotion, activity’ S: carrying in any . or violation any imx>risoned . manner “Any both. fined not with establish, [*] . or unlaw- means on, more man- shall per- per- I Mr. Barrett this was said to mously approved the Board without game, casting all the a new ball debate, vote his own and that pay. County I was committed upon president relied obliga- statutory perform his Clerk “to Mr. wanted said price “the best tion” to the need per machine. $200 equipment the Coun- for this kind of moment, then hesitated for a ty.” only to Mr. Barrett said County had become Defendant Barrett per way pay him machine I could $200 County in and con- Clerk of Cook price of the vot- be to raise 1973, upon his tinued in that office until County ing machine $100 conviction in this case. Cook, he could I felt and that price, increase Corpora- vindicate the Voting Shoup $100 Machine County 50-row, had a bastard 10-column, because Cook began tion sell its voting type voting County machine. to Cook vertical machines *4 early 1964, the 1963 or in the In 1950’s. meant that. He asked me what I County to Cook machines were converted stand- him that we made two I told give more room 6-column machines “to machine, and it had ard models Meyers, propositions.” Irving H. Shoup policy, whether or been Shoup, president of then executive vice county or a a one machine we sold charge County con- was in of the Cook always thousand, price was Chicago version, place in which took County a ma- But had Cook same. the machines warehouses where county in Unit- other chine like no Meyers time, met Bar- At stored. that So, therefore, there was ed States. rett. County’s nothing compare Cook Shoup ownership July, In against any price. price other group of Philadel- was transferred to a he could take Barrett said that Mr. Meyers phia a 10 became investors. said increase. Mr. Barrett care of the president percent owner money. get me, would he when Shoup. naturally, pay I would him, I told 13, 1965, September “in accordance On money Shoup received after him the bids,” Meyers your request with County money for the from the Barrett, proposing on behalf wrote to voting equipment. purchase voting Shoup machines to sell 250 be would Barrett said there Mr. Having County $1,791 re- at each. money in would need when he times Meyers response, to Chi- came ceived no front. December, cago and met I would that I said to Mr. Barrett County office. Barrett in his Clerk money give I re- when him half of Meyers did not have that he Barrett told contract solid, concrete ceived a purchase at machines the funds to County, purchase order from Cook might money in time but have the money re- when I half of the the other budget. forthcoming Meyers testi- payment of the funds for ceived fied: company voting by our machines any deal- I said to Mr. Barrett County. from Cook Company ings Shoup between County future in the of Cook fine. that would be He said I told he and I. would be between any deal- that on told Mr. Barrett I I committed Mr. Barrett was time, ings would be be- pay percent on all vot- cash him five alone, never I I he and tween County. ing machine to Cook sales there position where in a to be wanted pro- present, party for his third to me he was a Mr. Barrett said getting money for mine. that before. also than tection and more Meyers explained acquired how he Barrett ran for Novem- re-election personal Meyers paid ber, made cash which he Barrett: campaign contribution, $1,000 which president In I when became acknowledged letters, in two one Barrett raising Shoup, I devised method prior subsequent and one to the election. might purposes of cash where there be Meyers election, called After the Barrett obtaining I did not business where congratulate time him. That Barrett legitimate representative, gave Meyers telephone his home unlisted by paying only way cash was number, placed per- receive the business. sonal address book. method that devised pay persons repre- different checks January, 1967, Meyers saw Barrett Shoup sent in certain where areas staying at the hotel where Barrett representation, pay did not have or to Springs, Palm California. When professional people, different check Shoup Meyers asked Barrett when could lawyers professional forth for so expect business, replied some fees for services nonrendered. thought he there some would paid budget When I these to these in the and that checks when people they pay Philadelphia, their income returned proposal tax and then return to me 40 or 50 send Barrett for 300 should percent cash, voting and at the end of each machines. year I would send out a form to *5 Meyers January 13, 1967, sent On people they report these so that could proposal for the sale of Barrett they report —make sure would voting $1,898 ($107 at above machines money on their income tax. bid). proposal was the 1965 The valid way This is the or the method that 15, expira- to March Before 1967. I used to raise cash. Meyers date, telephoned Barrett tion The the rec- introduced County and was told did not have agency ords of the travel which booked buy funds to the machines. flights Chicago to and from Meyers October, telephoned Barrett 14, They on 1967. showed November requested bid for the and another flight arrived at Chica- proposal, machines. second go Airport p. at and O’Hare 12:17 m. price 20, 1967, set the at sent on October flight Philadelphia return bid). ($99 $1,890 above the 1965 p. Telephone left at 2:10 m. O’Hare journal proceedings of the Cook Shoup’s of- records from showed a call County for No- Board Commissioners telephone fice to unlisted home Barrett’s 7, 1967, Shoup vember showed 13, number Safe on November 1967. ap- unanimously bid of October 20 posit company on records a visit showed Shortly by proved thereaf- the Board. deposit to one two safe November 13 Meyers by telephone ter, Barrett advised Meyers kept cash boxes in which whereupon Mey- approval, of the Board payments. make come to told him he would Chi- ers Shoup Corporation the last received cago. County payment on the 300 Cook from Meyers August, early Chicago 1968. Meyers November machines on flew to fly arranged to plastic and zippered then called Barrett 14, va- with a blue 9, August Chicago him. containing to see On $30,000 in cash. At Bar- lise $30,000 1968, Meyers in cash suggestion Meyers withdrew prior him met rett’s box, deposit placed init his they from safe had lunch terminal where at the air it, envelope Meyers put and sealed together. brown manila the restaurant At plastic va- envelope placed in a blue and himself Barrett the valise between Chicago Barrett He where picked up lise. flew after lunch Barrett airport; lunch had him met and left. valise with the airport at the same verify restaurant receipt as before. money. his Again meeting Barrett left the with the These dates were also corroborated $30,000. Telephone valise and the showing entry records deposit safe on August records showed a call telephone to Barrett’s Coun- 16 and calls to Barrett ty August 7; depos- August Clerk office on 22, safe on 20 and 1968. entry by Meyers it records showed a box option was exercised August 9, County February Shoup and on August airport meeting Mey- At Corporation deposited an installment ers and Barrett County discussed the sale of an check $278,500. from the ' voting additional days February machines. Barrett 13, Meyers, Two later on Meyers April way had called Vegas and had said who was on his to Las County that Cook daughter’s needed 300 more ma- wedding, stopped his at Chi- upcoming presidential chines for cago. placed $45,000 He had in ma- money. election but did not have the envelope, it, put nila sealed it in a Shortly Meyers thereafter called Barrett blue valise. Barrett met him air- at the Shoup and advised him that could fur- port gate Chicago, took the valise and nish 200 new machines and 100 recondi- Meyers Vegas. left. continued on to Las tioned used at a machines rental of $300 Meyers Records showed that entered per election, machine for the November deposit February safe box on option purchase with an the machines plane and that on that date he took a pur- and a credit of the rental on the Philadelphia, which landed in Chi- price. incorporating chase A contract cago in the afternoon and then continued terms, option-sale price those Vegas. the. to Las $1,890 per fixed at new machine October, telephoned $1,790 per signed by machine, used Meyers County and told him that County Barrett as Clerk and going voting purchase 300 more Shoup, August for by approved dated 8 and machines. told him County according Board to its price had increased and that would journal August 9, price him let know what the new *6 meeting airport At the at the on the Meyers 3, be. On November wrote Bar- Meyers 9th, asked Barrett whether advising price rett him for that the new thought County that the would exercise voting per $2,025 machines ma- was option purchase the the machines. chine. A contract with signed terms was those would, When Barrett assured him that it County by by Barrett for the and Meyers give told him that he would him Meyers Shoup Corporation for and was $15,000 in a few weeks and another approved by County Board on March $45,000 County paid when the for the By 4, 2, letter dated March agreed machines. Barrett to that ar- Meyers County Clerk’s office advised rangement. approved. A that the contract had been days Meyers telephoned few thereafter August 20, 1968, telephoned Meyers On Barrett and advised him that near play- Barrett and told him that he was going and end of March he west was ing Shoup-sponsored golf in a tourna- Chicago. stop would at ment that week but would send his 23, Meyers brother-in-law, Tony Lemisch, March withdrew On “with box, deposit package Meyers $30,000 sealed from his safe for him.” testified that envelope placed and $15,000 he had it in brown manila withdrawn in from cash vinyl plastic envelope ease. deposit days his safe in a blue box several before Chicago, kept Barrett at and it in He met a safe in his home. On flew 20th, gave money airport with him the case and handed to Lemisch re- envelope. money. meeting, in Barrett a sealed to the At that Lemisch went Chicago day quested political because on that contribution and delivered Meyers running envelope County to Barrett for his Clerk he was re-election. political Meyers telephoned gave him a office. Later “I Barrett answered that system” every gave used. He him a the “conduit that he I contribution time pleaded more vot- valise, Barrett for no chance then with blue and that there was ing explaining any- business, that he machine not win re-election he would resigned president Shoup was but the had as left with how.” Barrett smiled and Shoup. agent for money. the exclusive sales County him Barrett probably told that the August, Bar- In advised purchasing ma- more ma- rett the March order for 300 chines. used filled chines could be with excellent price. Thereafter machines at a lower Thereafter, 20, 1971, the on December August Shoup County on ex- and Shoup County approved a with contract reduced ecuted a revised contract at a price per voting $1,995 machines at $1,897 per Shoup re- machine. paid money No ever machine. was County ceived a check Cook regard ma- to the last 500 Barrett $189,700 August 14, dated which was chines. posited August 20, purchasing of insurance August 1970, Meyers On withdrew County by voting machines owned Cook $30,000 deposit out safe of his box responsibility in his Barrett through customary procedure went Comptroller of Cook role ex officio August deliver it on Barrett 30 to Deputy Comptroller County. Chicago airport. Hodgman. During period R.C. August 30, The March 1970 through 1971, voting insur- machine payments depos- are documented safe Hodgman placed Ar- ance pur- it records and used airline tickets Gallagher insur- Company, & thur J. by Meyers. chased paid di- agency. Premiums ance rectly regard paying $180,000 In Cook the insurance carrier cash, Barrett testified: paid County, a 25 the carrier in turn paid to Mr. percent J. to Arthur commission Gal- getting voting Gallagher insure lagher Company. business, firm & County. commission, machine percent business a 10 retained felt that with Mr. recom- percent Barrett’s paid to Barrett. commission a 15 purchase County reported mendation on the Barrett never voting Shoup receiving there machines that com- these that he was Board problem passing Keating, would be no Although Edward missions. Gallagher, board. president of J. vice Arthur County received the testified December, 1970, Meyers was sub- bargain insurance, possible best poenaed appear *7 a federal before limited was he admitted that the choice grand jury Philadelphia and to turn companies with which to those insurance Corporation Shoup over all records. In agree- agency Gallagher firm had July, 1971, he was first indicted. that, Keating Further, testified ment. November, Meyers 1971, telephoned Bar- Hodgman, of the Galla- the direction rett and asked to see him. Barrett gher in- not firm was identified agreed, Meyers Chicago flew to on No- contrary policies, the custo- surance 9, vember and the two men had lunch at mary procedure. an insur- Barrett Club 39. who received commissions ance broker Meyers brought with him brown “a period During the other business. on envelope my containing manila indict- $6,000 through approximately 1970 ments” and “in told Barrett that he on $17,000 commissions of a lot of trouble.” asked if he Barrett voting machine insurance. might become involved and as- sured him that he would not. Barrett consisted The use of mails County mailing by asked how obtained the cash of checks Cook mailing paid Meyers explained had Barrett and of companies, and the insurance grounds by companies 231, 1583, er the insurance cheeks 387 U.S. 87 S.Ct. Gallagher (1967), pointed L.Ed.2d firm. we out: any person prominence Whenever of in- 16-count named Barrett was charged story crime, 28, September on returned dictment usually will receive wide distribution charged vio- six counts The 1972. first through various news It media. (18 Act § the Travel U.S.C.
lation of impracticable postpone to enough the trial 1952), offi- had caused Barrett in that period long public for a for in- Voting Corpora- Shoup Machine of cials terest die down. . interstate commerce tion travel prominent politi- Here defendant was a receiving from purpose bribes of figure Chicago County, cal and Cook his acts to influence those officials having County served as Clerk for 18 County. County next The Clerk of years. charged with viola- Barrett four counts filing by false (1) of 26 news stories the in- tion U.S.C. discussed § go beyond tax returns dictment did fraudulent income and not lan- and 1967, 1968, guage un- 1970, (2) in that he indictment, discussed political income in each his taxable defendant’s derstated career and in that respect years. favorable, (3) The final six counts those con- charged self-serving lengthy violation of 18 U. Barrett with tained com- by using by attorney mail to further ments S.C. 1341 defendant and his § people proclaiming group of Cook to defraud scheme his innocence. This causing County by appeared insurance brokers’ prior of stories five months upon paid pre- him to be commissions trial. County paid for insurance miums group ap- A second of news stories voting coverage machines.4 of its peared February 15, thru re- last six counts were dismissed placed by premiums and dealt with the insurance supersed- similar counts in Chicago City on business received ing January indictment returned on employing an insurance firm son mayor Chicago, receivership court positions president of obtained February The trial commenced insuring firm, insurance jury a verdict returned receivership properties. Bar- Defendant guilty sen- Barrett was on all counts. group rett was not named in this years’ imprisonment on tenced to three news items. count, to run concur- each the sentences $15,000. rently, and a total of was fined group of stories relat- The third news in the ed returned verdict building Chicago same court federal II finding February 20, Illinois former judge governor appeals and court complains of first Defendant in- guilty of various crimes Otto Kerner publicity. prejudicial cluding bribery, income mail fraud and day did tax violations. These stories February On a mention commenced, moved for Barrett. defendant trial *8 types three on the basis continuance beginning dire ex- of the voir At the type newspaper publicity. first prospective jurors Feb- on amination of appeared which of stories consisted judge ruary case, the district 22 in this on returned was indictment when the seeking emphasized strongly that he was September 28. entirely impartial trial based “a and fair transpires courtroom in this Hoffa, F.2d on what In United States way any on and not based from now (7th on oth- 1966), vacated Cir. portions pertinent 1-3, supra,, three statutes for text of *9 247-50) ; (Tr. N. Pear- 117-21) and Kenneth ; (Tr. Smart Edward Richard E. Vincent 258-61). (Tr. 131-33) Lynch (Tr. ; Liechtenhagen son C. Vera you Well, severity to listen to commensurate I don’t want with the of the posed.” Thomas, jury to find people not on the threat are United v. 1972). who States just 1061, you (7th tell do. So 463 F.2d As out what should Cir. Margoles States, couple or less we in a weeks stated v. them that you United every- (7th Cir.), them to tell 407 F.2d de able cert. will be any prelimi- nied, thing, you L.Ed. don’t want 396 U.S. but S.Ct. people (1969): or nary at home 2d from advice socially you people will meet Thus, procedure required end the week [sic]. over prejudicial publici- this Circuit where you again ty brought goiñg question on is to to the court’s attention I am you during morning Monday to whether a trial is that the must court my any jurors in re- admonition ascertain if who had been followed case, discussing exposed publicity not gard to such to not had read it, listening reading jurors not heard the same. who re- about Such spond affirmatively then ex- must amined, individually and outside the jury: Monday, asked the court On presence jurors, of the other to deter- gentlemen, all, ladies and First of publicity. mine the effect of you con- Friday I admonished last indicates, However, juror upon if no scientiously purposefully avoid inquiry collectively, jury made to the anything reading the week- over about any that he has read or of the heard listening case, involving or to end publicity judge question, involving anything radio or TV on required proceed further. . this case. proce- The district court followed this anyone on this there Is dure. request? my comply failed Friday Given the admonitions so, your If raise hand. negative jurors responses and the responded. No one Monday morning, court the district Chicago news- one the weekend Over reasonably juror could no conclude that describing the paper an article carried publicity. had read of the weekend investigations Attorney’s States United refusing He did not err in to declare including politicians, local various mistrial. ar- A second Barrett. Kerner and both Kerner comparison between ticle was Ill personalities, trial Barrett, their defendant that his con- The contends against charges them. strategy, and the charges bribery viction on the was con- speculated Barrett that the article trary to and a violation of his due law depend on whether would verdict jury right process a fair trial Barrett, but believed illegally suppress ob- court failed to unlikely it was noted tained evidence. testify. a mistrial moved for Defendant only against important witness these articles. basis charges bribery defendant on the Irving Meyers. filed H. Defendant alleged prejudicial Each case pre-trial suppress motion “special facts.” publicity rest on its must testimony6 induced it was because Jannsen, F.2d States United government’s promise tax of civil severity 1964). (7th “The Cir. passed immunity $700,000 upon na depends both the the threat through deposit boxes. his safe publicized so information ture of the government’s promise exposure it. degree juror bargaining plea response to be Moreover, judge’s one of the terms of the testimony Pennsylvania bargain applied in the made a similar also 6. The motion Anthony Lemiseh, who a minor witness trial.
1101 Meyers any negotiated person, crim- to or in his for because of the deal part testimony given Pennsylvania. Meyers’ in under oath . . inal trial . given guilty person plead several or to to to be as a of the deal was upon trial, conspiracy hearing, and mail fraud witness a or other counts of filing proceeding tax two income . . be fined to counts false . [s]hall report imprisoned $10,000 taxable not did not more than or returns which $700,000 years, fund. for portions not more two or income the than both. agreed Meyers testify in other to also Meyers’ testimony Because obtained was happened proceedings to about what through in violation of inducement sec- government return, $700,000. 201(h), argues, tion the testi- defendant on all counts recommended a sentence mony suppressed. should have been year day, imposed under one and a to be Instead, the mo- trial court denied immediately making Meyers a statute7 impeach tion but to allowed defendant eligible parole, to served at for bring- Meyers oh cross-examination Eglin facility Force detention at Air ing all terms the plea out government Base, also Florida. The bargain.9 argue Counsel was allowed to immunity granted Meyers transactional immunity to the civil tax preclude prosecutions. In addi- to state agreement gave Meyers lie to motive Pennsylvania prosecutor tion, recom- giving $180,000 about to the defendant. exempt it mended to the I.R.S. premise of defendant’s ar liability Meyers from civil tax gument gov suppression for is that part $700,000 would tes- of the which he authority no ernment has to allow civil tify paid or as bribes under oath he had testimony. immunity He in return for public political contributions to prosecutor vi concedes that a would not officials.8 by granting 201(h) crimi olate section theory motion of defendant’s immunity, nal 18 6002 because U.S.C. § paid government had effect gives government power. But testify Meyers one million dollars immunity, granting civil unauthorized against public offi- other defendant and argument, according to the defendant’s Meyers testified, cials. time he Each giving something of value a witness obligation pay in- relieved testimony for in contravention his penalties what- come tax and fraud 201(h). section gave he of the cash said ever amount parties’ 26 U.S.C. Both briefs overlook Defendant claims official. arrangement 18 U.S.C. § violates 7122: §
201(h): (a) Secretary Authorization.- —The gives, delegate indirectly, Treasury] directly Whoever, or his or [of anything compromise any
offers,
promises
value
case
civil or criminal
falsifying
4208(a)(2).
his taxa-
convicted of
7. 18
§
U.S.C.
ble,
gross
his
income.
not
aspect
peculiar
bargain is
of this
One
States,
indicting
Giglio
inconsistency
government’s
405
v. United
9. The decision
report
failing
convicting Meyers
L.Ed.2d
104
31
U.S.
S.Ct.
government
safe-deposit-box
(1972),
requiring
taxable
disclose
cash as
some
promise
leniency
key
himself,
made
witness
income
time ex
same
testimony,
implies
cusing
liability
income.
return
his civil tax
on that
remedy.
explain
appropriate
suppression
attempt
is not
does not
Isaacs,
F.Supp.
contradiction,
except
argument
States v.
at oral
See United
report
(N.D.Ill.1972),
where
court
did
should have
contend
Gig
expect
gross
the Court
income and deducted
added:
“We
ed the cash as
trial,
expense.
have
a new
alter
lio
Of course
not
ordered
the bribes as
business
suppression
natively
expense
of Tal
ordered
such an
deductible.
26 U.S.C.
trial,
testimony
Welding
;
if
162(c)
in a second
& Metal
iento’s
Dixie Machine
§
leniency
States,
Works,
warranted
F.2d
Government’s
reward
Inc. v. United
suppression.”
(5th Cir.),
denied,
S.
cert.
U.S.
(1963). Besides,
1679,
law does not
that the
scheme to defraud and use
by
ceived
defendant be turned over
mails in
of the scheme.”
furtherance
County.
par-
three
1105
that the
directly
We conclude
conviction
All of the
involved
counts
indirectly,
position
of the defendant Barrett on the mail
the use of official
private
fraud counts was
the evi-
warranted
the benefit of
interest
pecuniary
dence
and the law.13
consideration.
Egan
States,
In
App.D.C.
v. United
52
V
384,
(1923),
F.
defendant was a
pre-trial motion to sever
Defendant’s
public
charged
representing
official
with
charges
bribery
the mail
fraud
private party
taking
and with
charges
and tax evasion
under Rules
to influence his official decisions. The
Fed.R.Crim.P.,14
8(a)
14,
belonged
court said the two crimes
nied.
the same class.
government’s theory
joinder
In
Weber,
United
States
F.2d
bribery
scheme and the insur-
(3d
1970),
denied,
Cir.
cert.
402 U.
ance commission scheme were two trans-
S.
S.Ct.
under Rule
which looks
denied a motion for a bill of
regard
joinder
by a
ticulars in
a defendant
to the six
udice caused
Travel Act-
adding
Obviously any
bribery charges,
charged
of of
of which
offenses.
four
specific
prejudicial
to some
travel
in a
fenses to others
month and two of
charged
However,
specified
a sever which
travel in a
extent.
two-
“[w]hether
grant
period.
month
ance of related offenses should
largely
the dis
ed must remain
within
partic
motion for a bill
judge upon
trial
consider
cretion of the
ulars is addressed to the sound discre
the indi
ation
the circumstances of
tion of the
United States
court.
v. Ka
Bar Association
vidual case.” American
plan,
100,
(7th
1972),
470 F.2d
103
Cir.
Project
For
Jus
on Standards
Criminal
denied,
1443,
966,
cert.
410 U.S.
93 S.Ct.
Relating
tice,
to Joinder
Standards
(1973).
course,
1107
Chicago
170,
possibility
Stone,
(7th
was in
v.
States
471 F.2d
172
February
1972),
denied,
931,
13 but re- Cir.
to meet
cert.
411 U.S.
93
evening
Springs
1898,
(1973).
turned to Palm
S.Ct.
necessary changed any to evaluate their in way? effect in context entire of the record. is not It Yes, larger A. to a box. guilt our to function determine inno- Q. Now, you do recall the names— notwithstanding cence, but, rather, our big The Court: Was it as as a shoe- persuasion question guilt, own box? jury’s judg- to determine whether the me, The Witness: Pardon sir? may substantially ment have been swayed by error. is question. Unless “when all The Court: Next done, said and the conviction sure (R. 427) (emphasis added) jury, error did not influence the may judicial I think we take notice of slight duty effect,” or had but it is our symbolic significance of a in shoebox to order a new trial.1 notoriety view of the which followed dis- covery Secretary of former of State proceeded against This ease to trial a Paul Powell’s cash hoard con- such a given backdrop publicity of extensive judge tainer. That a federal district allegations govern- corruption in local gratuitous would make a to a reference During ment. the week during bribery shoebox trial of an- jury unprec- commenced, selection of the public figure, may other who have well given publicity con- edented was been associated with Powell the minds Judge of its viction of Kerner. Because is, say jurors, least, of some dis- exceptional trial character, I think the tressing. His us of comment reminds judge granted should have con- short how difficult it evaluate ef- subtle pub- impact allow tinuance to publicity promi- fects in the trial of a licity particularly subside, there since political figure. nent In view of that delay. objection no valid such difficulty, possibility I believe the majority’s accept do, however, con- may publicity have en- extensive the motion that the denial of clusion hanced of conviction is a the likelihood permissible exercise a continuance was a evaluating weigh factor we must judge’s of the trial discretion. significance trial error. is, perfectly nevertheless, clear that It compels close Another factor help publicity defend- did not may scrutiny in- error may cause, have tended well ant’s extraordinary jury is fluenced the “bandwagon” psychology that develop a arrange- government’s character of the likely. more conviction would make his Judge Meyers. ment with the witness by the Indeed, comment volunteered Sprecher has demonstrated day the trial judge first trial Nevertheless, testimony was admissible. in- have been he even indicates that provided him with since publicity by widespread about fluenced powerful financial incentive During government. corruption in local large testify paid cash he bribes witness examination the direct every bribe to others —for Barrett and describing his rental Meyers, who testimony, described in kept deposit in which boxes safe amount like a tax benefit receive fol- officials, public to bribe funds strong possibili- certainly a —there was lowing occurred: good reason ty find that the *17 veracity. the Meyers’ you Since Q. main- doubt Now, that the box largely the on your rested prosecution’s case your on and name it with tained function, judges’ appellate not 750, States, and the cence withstanding 328 U.S. v. United 1. Kotteakos persuasion pas the on 1239, their 764, own L.Ed. 1557. 66 90 S.Ct. the question guilt, whether long quote, to determine sage is which but is too which significantly may jury’s judgment Rutledge have been rereading, care Justice well worth 763-765, id., 66 by at the error. See fully affected explained the between distinction guilt inno jury’s S.Ct. 1239. to determine function
1109 credibility witness,2 of this and since the agreement and worked out an where credibility exclusively determination is could he insure the machines, some- province within jury, thing the is a required this he was to do under the appellate judges case in which have a get terms job, of his and then a kick- special responsibility sig- to evaluate the in back the form of a broker’s com- plain nificance the rather errors mission.” R. 1484 identify which did occur. I shall those government In its brief in this court that trouble theme most.3 argued arrangement that the insurance joinder separate 1. originated The of- two early 1961, which as as highly prejudicial bribery fenses pur- in connection with the and, my opinion, fendant in not autho- chase of machines in 1967 and thereaf- by 8(a). “parts rized Rule ter, were of a common scheme or plan.” support The evidence affords no knowledge jury’s Unquestionably and, quite at all that contention years had been for several Barrett properly, accepted is it not the ma- accepting commissions secret insurance jority arrangements here. The two County on business enhanced the likeli- entirely per- made with sets of different tes- hood that would credit sons, times, different and neither was timony Con- secret cash about bribes. any way dependent upon in the other. impact prosecutor’s ar- sider brief, As the states its gument : regard than “other with back- enough “See, for Edward it wasn’t ground information, no one witness $180,000 in to receive bribes. underlying testified to events both got got a he After he the machines bribery fraud of- the mail hungrier and he wanted some little fenses.” money, more and so he went ahead buy supplies Zenith to at a lower enabled extremely per- corroboration, though 2. price; here, however, the uncontradicted evi- unambiguous. suasive, entirely was not indicates that of the com- dence disclosure deposit Thus, were suf- the safe box entries payments Barrett would not have mission shortly ficiently numerous that the entries County insurance enabled to obtain on Meyers’ trips Chicago were not before any better terms. telephone unusual; calls to the records of admittedly, since, innocuous relating Barrett are p. Brief at state- Government’s purchase negotiations of vot- government’s support ment is made position, ing machines were conducted accept, there was no Barrett; the airline indicated records joinder significant risk tend Chicago the dates jury. possibility of con- to confuse but, testified, course, told which he preju- however, fusion, source nothing jury whom about what he did or joinder. this troubles me about dice which met; price in his increase attributed using Bather, evidence of is the vice of testimony a bribe Barrett’s demand for disposi- prove crime to the defendant’s one through- County sales effective govern- I think the commit another. tion to arguably justified country le- out the Judge suggesting that ment is correct gitimate factors. cost Lotsch, analysis in v. States Hand’s United 1939), 35, (2d would lead F.2d Cir. express my agreement 3. I should also believe, joinder. approval how- of this majority’s law under the conclusion that prevailing opinion ever, the views favors fraud mail circuit a violation of of this ago long expressed v. Kidwell United although proved, rest I would statute was (1912), 566, App.D.C. States, at 570 holding in United that conclusion (7th 1124, follows: Isaacs, 493 F.2d v. States separate and dis- doubtful whether 976, “It denied, 1974), 94 S.Ct. U.S. cert. Cir. parties, felonies, involving different tinct than United 1146 rather 41 L.Ed.2d arising npt transaction out of the same (7th George, Cir. F.2d 508 States proof, upon dependent should the same denied, 1973), 94 S.Ct. cert. U.S. not be But it should be consolidated. ever believe because I 38 L.Ed.2d charged are of permitted crimes where the George, record, foreclos record in unlike the might regard pur nature that County, aas es the contention other, when, pe as corroborative one insurance, have suffered chaser of cuniary *18 fact, exists.” corroboration no in injury. commer the Disclosure of might George bribery case in the cial Thus, considerations of trial convenience 1966. That letter prices, listed F.O.B. joinder. support this factory, eight do for different models of voting including machines, a “50 theory joinder up- on which the is $1,862.00. The ma- Bank/Manual” held is that the two were “con- crimes County chines used in Cook were of that they nected” because both involved a kind, using but instead of the standard public breach of trust. No Barrett’s model, County 10-column Cook used a significance special is, be, or should at- only modified machine with six columns. to in- tached the that both fact Meyers testified that he told Barrett voting my judg- volved machines. higher justify that that fact would a to that “connection” is too tenuous ment price County in Cook than elsewhere.6 justify joinder. prejudicial a In- ignored, If the modification were de- deed, the foreclosed I believe result is argued fense counsel that cost the of of decision on the both branches our sev- transporting factory machines the Quinn in erance issue the case.5 There Chicago to produce would a delivered the fact that the unlawful disbursement price $1,890.00 of about for the 50 again April 1963, of on on funds model. The defense took July 8, Bank/Manual 1963, both involved a breach of quite position, properly, the that these Quinn’s fiduciary obligation the to de- facts to an relevant evaluation of Beverly positors of the and shareholders credibility Meyers’ testimony the con- Savings insuffi- & Loan Association was cerning price the reason for a increase justify joinder. Moreover, cient to County. in Cook similarity between two transac- Quinn case, which both of tions Meyers testified that Barrett’s de- institution, the same involved the same per mand for a bribe of machine $200 appropriation funds, source of and an necessary Shoup made for to increase large a defendant’s own sum for the County. price its on sales Cook This benefit, marked than the much more was, course, especially dramatic el- here, present fact, il- that two different government’s proof. ement of the legal happened to relate schemes both testimony indicated de- that bribe voting Frankly, I have some machines. a mand was made December Quinn validity about doubt Shoup had offered few months after reject- holding, but even if it were to County $1,791.00 a sell machines at joinder. disapprove ed, I of this Ultimately, price. October, Certainly today, prej- Quinn if viable agreed $1,890.00. parties price on this udicial was committed in case. error theory government’s that It was Documentary tend- evidence which price increase between theory support ed to defendant’s to Barrett’s was attributable erroneously excluded. case was defend- was the It mand a bribe. theory was at- increase is nec- ant’s of certain facts A restatement “higher steel and costs of essary significance explain tributable expenses” manufacturing Ex- other admit defendant’s refusal —the court’s price in- the 1966 to in Shoup’s referred factors 1-A, customers a letter to hibit im- had an price announcing letter —factors crease increase 4% country. throughout July 1, prices pact voting effective machines Shoup’s actually the cost of Quinn, less than 263- States F.2d United model, and convert- (1) (7 1966). 10-column standard held both Cir. The court (2) ing ma- joinder manual improper standard 10-column as- Shoup potential enabled machine suming misjoinder, 6-column chine no produc- parts in the required use four columns prejudice a severance. 918-919). (R. Such machines. of their tion testimony weight relates direct 6. This statement based price properly give let- might increase 406-407) recognize testimony. (It. clearly but, my judgment, not af- does ter examination on redirect testified admissibility. County machines its fect to manufacture Cook cost *19 lili mony expressly re- on the letter cross-examination or not which was Whether unques- County, it consistent with the letter;9 lated to to Cook sales contents support finally, prosecutor joined tionably defendant’s tended suggested version the facts. discussion and that letter was irrelevant because there was relating colloquy admissi- The no evidence that it was sent to Cook bility remarkable. Out this exhibit County,10 and, further, because Cook jury, presence before the of the of the prosecution County did not use the standard 50 government case, its rested Bank machine in referred to the letter.11 that counsel advised the court The court then observed the letter that docu- intended offer certain fendant made no reference to the six-column 50 putting before ments in evidence witnesses, only Bank machine which used in although authentici- and that County, ultimately decided to government ty stipulated, had been exclude it. right object had reserved the relevancy.7 asked de- The court then ruling If court’s was based on the “go the list" to counsel to down fense ground that the exhibit was cumulative unnecessary interruption avoid proceedings government argues —as the appeal jury. Defense before the plainly —it was Unquestion- erroneous. then to describe Exhibit counsel started ably a character, document this any objection being and, 1-A without during can be jury reviewed at leisure long colloquy government, a made deliberations, may greater have a much counsel between court and defense impact than mere recollec- ensued. precisely tion what witness During portion collo- of that first lengthy have admitted in the course of a suggest quy that comments court’s suggestion cross-examination. The letter immaterial be- he considered the the document was irrelevant so mani- wrongdoing prove any cause it did not festly that, credit, frivolous to its by Meyers; court seemed later the government longer places any no reli- suggest was inadmissi- that the document argument. ance on that The acknowledged exhibit Meyers had ble because given genuine evidence; should have been received in testi- that it and had Well, your Honor, just Mr. Foran: R. as a 1122-1124. argument, matter of I can show them that The automobile salesman Court: Does only way for once the I could make the charge commit a crime because he doesn’t man tell the truth was when I could show factory price suggested of an automo- something handwriting. him in his own bile? Honor, piece Your that’s an essential saying I am Mr. Foran: evidence. It— all, your Honor, I commits a crime at but mean, your log- Court: if I followed saying am that— ic, Foran, Mr. would have to mean, prices pretty flex- are Court: bring sixty-five Friday, calendars you bad, sell machines real ible. If want August 28th —or the 28th of was on a 1129) you (R. can bit. shave little Friday, enough. because one calendar isn’t got got all that in verba- 9. The Court: You You have the record from his lips. lips, tim He has— and it’s uncontradicted and it’s unde- nied, why you piece Mr. Foran: Your Honor— and I don’t know need a acknowledged sending paper acknowledged, has The Court: He since he has explained your presence jury, says. thing it on cross this out. He has what Nobody shake him has tried to examination. Mr. Foran: And so I should therefore Nobody jury, has made mo- from what he said. able to show them what it to show your acknowledged, he said. It’s tion to strike what Honor. why you piece (R. 1131-32) need a I don’t know record. paper in there. 10. R. 1132-33. Because, your Honor, it’s Mr. Foran: handwriting. 11. R. 1135. his own acknowledged already He has Court: that. *20 unquestionably rejection prejudi- travel, its gambling, rent, purchase of cial to the defense. securities, personal and other items. Al- though some of these exhibits were re- my categories In judgment, two other ceived, to it seems me that it was error of exhibits should also have been receiv- to exclude those which disclosed ed. apartment expenses rent and and his bribery For corroboration of its bank statements and income tax returns. testimony, relied, judge prejudicial trial made part, depos- on records entries safe to and ny. inaccurate comment on testimo- it to and boxes which Lemisch Hirshorn According govern-
had access. only evidence, Meyers two such boxes support theory ment’s In that his expenses personal were used to hoard the cash which was paid hoards for used cash documentary Barrett, attempted its bribes, to rather than defendant proof Meyers habitually was limited to those two boxes. establish that to prov- large The ing offered five records person. defendant carried sums of cash on his were additional safe Meyers that there cross-examination, was asked On posit and Lemisch policeman boxes which Hirshorn with a about conversations many that opened Proof on occasions. burglary been after a who had called would, entries there were numerous Meyers’ apartment. to He was unable signifi- course, telling policeman have minimized he had recall that entry particular any close in day cance of $1,600 at races earlier won that Meyers’ trips point to time to one of (R. 838-839) his or that wife had told were, Chicago. exhibits large The defense he officer that carried sums the money therefore, admissible.12 relevant person. on Without his having objection raised Meyers been that contended The defendant colloquy prosecutor, then ensued a huge hoard, on his cash accumulated say, judge which, the trial it fair taxes, paid to fi- no income which he counsel, witness extravagant personal belittled defense ex- his nance penses. own having categorically “a bad had contention, denied support In of this large money carrying habit of sums exhibits numerous defendant offered person.”13 high tending expenditures [his] prove By suggesting Mr. Foran: by any that means 12. I am not true, Well, government’s theory Mr.— they disprove is it Q. point merely evidence; that statement. make the A. I recall the don’t you ques- in the record included should have been a ask about to Court: He now, happens to evaluate. after he what Let’s see tion. says, ...” “Is it true. your conversation, that same Q. And in By Mr. Foran: the vic- that officer wife also informed Meyers, you true, do that it Mr. Q. Is large carrying sums a habit of tim had bad large carrying sums of have money bad habit a quite person, care- and was on his you your person, are that showing it, she? didn’t less about showing quite it? careless saying my that. wife ever A. I don’t recall No, sir. A. pres- say your them she Q. Did every you restau- leave a time That Q. ence— your pull you rant, out stand outside going you call his wife Are The Court: plain some- view of it in and count bankroll impeach statement? him by? body passing Honor, your No, I certain- but Mr. Foran: a— A. Is policeman ly made she whom can call pas- you going to have Are The Court: to, presence. in his the statement ser-by impeach him? impeach wife on his You can’t The Court: question? a serious Is that The Witness: police- wife said to of what his the basis Honor, your saying, I’m What Mr. Foran: man. present has after —he man was impeach trying is that I am not Mr. Foran: keep lot of did not here that he testified wife. on hand. impeach cash him on You can’t The Court: right. That’s policeman. The Court: said what his wife basis of pro- trial, Later in the the defense you The Court: Now have corrobo- police officer; duced the he testified Meyers. rated Mr. That is what had, both and his wife you. said to fact, made the statements Honor, Mr. Foran: Your he denied in- had been unable to recall. each very thing. any objection stance, without from the your Honor, Your motion, I have a government, judge the trial volunteered Honor, and would like make out incorrectly indicating a comment *21 presence jury. of the of the corroborating, the officer was rather your The Hold motion. Court: We contradicting, than the substance enough motions, have had until ten Meyers what had said: minutes 4:00. We will rule on it Q. Witness, Meyers Mr. did Mr. jury after the We are not leaves. you time, during tell that that con- at swinging going to run a door court- versation, that had the he been to room this afternoon. day the and hit racetrack before the question is ? What the next big exacto for around $1600? 1209) (R. A. did. He by judge are The comments the trial impeach- The There no Court: is significant merely they were not because ment there. inaccurate, importantly be- more but Exactly opposite, Mr. Foran: given they jury the must have cause your Honor, Meyers had denied Mr. judge fully impression credited that the police he that. that had told testimony key government’s of the cross examina- The Court: This is impact of I do not believe witness. Mey- impeaching is not Mr. tion. He completely cured incident can be an he told ers’ He said them statement. subsequent “to disre- instruction (R. 1204-05) that. you may have gard any intimation that anything got from I said.” few later: And a minutes Meyers Q. Witness, did Mrs. Mr. our attention Defendant has called you Mr. that time that tell at judge that the trial comments other large carrying habit of had a bad approval implied have person and was on his sums are consist- testimony. comments Those showing it? quite careless about but, interpretation, defendant’s ent transcript on appear a cold they as A. she did. Yes, jury happened ex- after did that lie 14. What testified He has Mr. Foran: transcript apjiarent from carry large not with him. cused is around bills However, substance right. before us. That’s The Court: apparent comment from his action is court’s And Foran : now— Mr. session: next going of the have tlie commencement are we Now The Court: say trial. Case on he stands The Clerk: witnesses some any Monday mo- Are there his The bills Court: and waves of restaurants front passers-by? tions? air to all the Monday denied. mistrial for a motion The him whether I asked Foran: Mr. reviewing Honor, Casey: present his wife Mr. Your where at a conversation although Friday, transcript Defend- policeman course of in the told not, am and I burglary. ant’s Exhibit— He said he says newspaper I over- asking— The One Court: newspaper him, I If impeach said didn’t. one ruled it and doesn’t Court: That The already, I do a second policeman. will it it I done wife said to whatever it, it do time, will I haven’t if done objection is sustained. time, a mistrial. the motion the first (R. 842-844) Judge. Casey: O.K., “objection” Mr. sustained the court which [The least done at least So at appear Court: record.] in the does not 1244) (R. maybe twice. once and unwilling personally deny charges appeal, I am to characterize serious certainly prejudicial.15 had made almost them as jury’s had influence delibera- judge trial made certain also tions. It is less clear that the decision presence comments outside the 73-year influ- of this old defendant was jury judgment, formed revealed a judge’s all trial hostile enced at heard, had been before all evidence speculating comment. about Instead of definitely guilty. defendant was that the impact comment, how- the actual during colloquy in example, For manifestly improp- ever, I consider it so renting larger subject which the presume er it was discussion, deposit under safe box was prejudicial. Certainly it won- makes me following exchange occurred: appropriate if der it is to construe oth- did And when The Court: ambiguous er in the comments made open joint box? presence having been harmless. your until Not Foran: Mr. *22 case, I
Honor. As reflect on record in this I must to some as to confess doubt they Well, need didn’t Court: whether the errors warrant a new trial. they met open hadn’t to one because guilt For is evidence of indeed Maybe yet. the boxes Mr. Barrett strong, and the crimes of which Barrett sufficient, they but had has been convicted the shabbiest involve big- they needed met him when therefore, is, kind of breach of It trust. 1146) ger (R. boxes. unusually tempting acquiesce to in a de- just may represent cision which well not heard The comment of this matter inevitable conclusion intimidate jury not it did I am sure temptation particu- in all events. experienced trial coun- the defendant’s larly strong professional when I note the highly Nevertheless, im- awas sel. prosecutor judge manner in which the tried presiding proper remark Nevertheless, more the case.16 because may im- had an have well to make and enduring challenged when, values are whenever pre- pact himself defendant considering there reason to doubt that a notorious may sumably, he have been public trial been conducted in an has the witness or not to take whether obligated manner, evenhanded I feel testify. to Notwith- not He did stand. position my in favor of resolve doubts to standing cautionary instruction danger which would minimize drawing infer- no adverse about regular procedures com- fair and so, the fact do to from his failure ence promised in the future. not did important public official that an why records, attempt I no during line see reason example, to estab- For have been made expenditures, information should not he was lish excessive trial. in advance available the defense an Without what he owned. asked objection having stock govern- interposed, A rule which would have denied trial been right as to interjected: introduce evidence judge ment specified harm “Well, now, would have done no re- dates not this is the Governor uncertainty case, somebody there was no quiring in this since make a net worth theory evidence. If there as to its of the Il- statement if he works for State required as the dates of the meet- had been doubt to disclose linois. He is not appro- ings Barrett, 788) you (R. between owns now.” what stocks he government’s response priate in the caveat preserved ability approval its to the order as not be construed 16. This should jury. place proper prosecutor’s position evidence before the Bill of govern- government argues, Perhaps, question. as the think the Particulars preju- specific provide required cannot demonstrate fendant have been ment should provide dice, certainly the refusal but definite statement the defendant with a more readily precise availa- information which was traveled to which of the dates on preparation the defense ble made the Chicago Barrett. to deliver bribe specific more difficult. air- dates were established
1H5 brings trial of to mind the This case guilty Oates, con- man who was Titus Macaulay’s improper methods.
victed re- that trial is worth
observation about
peating : not a a bad man is
“That Oates was excuse; guilty are for the
sufficient always to suffer those the first
almost
hardships used are afterwards against precedents the innocent.” respectfully dissent. TRANSPORTA MARINE PAUL
SAINT CORP., al., Plaintiffs- et TION Appellees, *23 CORPORATION,
CERRO SALES Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-1675. Appeals,
United States Court
Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 1974. 1, p. Macaulay’s England, History Yol. notes See violating. charged was anything figures, pervasive prejudi- that has oc- litical absent influenced or publicity pro- in this build- cial and failure to screen courtrooms curred in other spective jurors. panel pub- ing.” pre-trial judge then asked Here licity extremely pervasive, venirepersons: was not much figures political of it was directed to Having publicity in mind the recent defendant, other than the and that con- regard cases where to the other cerning go beyond did not defendant charges, is some similar there were reciting charges of the indictment. any jurors who feel that there importantly, prospective juror Most each knowledge you publicity and the any carefully expose was screened to gained publicity, would from that possible prejudice. judge The district your in this on verdict have an effect denying correct the motion for a was case? continuance. personally responded. exam- No one ining jury in on was selected and sworn juror prospective in the the first Friday, February 23, open- 1973, but the judge panel, presence of the entire ing begin statements were not to until asked: Monday, February Friday, de- 26. On any opinions you formed Have agreed jury fendant’s counsel any news- virtue of about this case paper sequestered need not be over the week- publicity, either or television end: regard particular case to this morning Monday Let’s wait until recently been that have other cases get jury go home, and let the their your verdict that would affect tried gear together they won’t have this case? anything tempt them would panels venireper- additional When discuss the of this ease. details brought into the courtroom sons judge When the district excused occasions, judge re- subsequent two jury weekend, for the he admonished im- emphasized same conditions jurors as follows: eventually juror se- partiality. Each advising you read on the Barrett I am now not to lected personally serve anything paper, base whether about this case in the asked he transpired anything only judgment this on what not to listen to about during trial case over radio or television. in this courtroom might have read about not what they I could tell don’t know what in other he heard had occurred what you you in the haven’t heard courtrooms.5 got jury, courtroom, except that we already. you permitted to So that know that counsel Defendant’s might you anything accepted jurors. don’t see how question the He you. any effect on panel, interro- read would have had been each of whom gated concerning publicity pre-trial regardless that, I admonish But politi- trials of of other effects it, anything you about not to read personages. defend- no time did cal At anyone at this case with to discuss change venue. ant’s counsel seek a home. sure, who, I will am There are some public to attitude That doing, you say, people what are corruption general political ward say, you them, tell will when time appear at one more severe to be jury, this is “Well, if I justify morato does not than another do.” po- what would prosecution of crimes rium on the (Tr. 140-43) ; (Tr. 160- 52-55) ; Cash (Tr. Charles O. Deanet- M. Schoors Barbara 226-29) ; Bogdan (Tr. 62) ; (Tr. Rungaitis R. 64-66) ; Charlotte (Tr. Eli ta Mensink 232-35) ; (Tr. Joseph 85-87) ; Robert C. (Tr. E. Kerwin 80-83) ; J. Peters Robert