Victor L. De Casaus v. United States
250 F.2d 150
9th Cir.
1958
Check Treatment

*2 HEALY, CHAM- Bеfore POPE and Judges. BERS, Circuit Judge. HEALY, Circuit Appellant jury convicted making offense of a false statement investigating Com officer Corporation modity (hereafter CCC) violation of U.S.C.A. 714m.1 § generally conviction He attaсks his being on an insufficient indictment based being supported by evi and as property, anything value, money, Crimes offenses —False or 714in. “§ statements; title, overvalution securities. 714-714o of this under sections any any applicаble “(a) makes statement Act Whoever other false, shall, upon knowing Corporation, it or whoever will- conviction there- fully security, of, punished of not more than overvalues fine influencing any way by imprisonment рurpose $10,000 the ac- not more ” * * * Corporation, pur- years, or for or both. than five tion obtaining another, pose for himself or rejected dence. indictment is The set out footn ment has been circuit non-рerjury ote2 below. cases. Todorow v. United 173 F.2d Fisher v. United govern- in the case for the hardly 231 F.2d And need general appellant, *3 ment was that as that, perjury cases, be added in one even manager Company, ne- of Casaus had corroborated, here, by witness cir- as gotiated purchase export of the ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍for some cumstantial evidence is sufficient. Weiler 15,000 cwt. of lima the CCC from beans States, 606, v. United 65 S.Ct. price for a рrice. the market below domestic 548, 89 L.Ed. 495. export Failure the so to rendered Company dif- liable to the CCC for the Appellant asserts that statute the price paid ference and between the the chаrged violating which he is does with by Investigation price. domestic market apply to investi statements made produced (introduced at CCC evidence gating Arguments ef officers. to that trial) showing the that a substantial universally rejected in fect have been purchased the of amount the beans involving cases like statutes. United domestically, CCC and that were sold Gilliland, States 61 S.Ct. 312 U.S. Company by supplied Casaus 598; 518, 85 L.Ed. Cohen v. United showing export false. of such beans were States, Marzani government’s one The chief witness was U.S.App.D.C. V. United agent Kennedy, special He a of CCC. 168 F.2d 133. dur- testified that ing November Finally appellant in claims error investigation, appel- his he met with the trial court’s refusal him allow paper wherein lant and appellant shown a was through government search voluminous Com- had stated that Casaus (some Customs records in num pany 15,417.20 of had beans reсeived cwt. ber). by kept These are secret Kennedy testified, “Mr. from the CCC. Agriculture Department regulation of had Casaus all beans said that these prevent competition order unfair exported been dеposed further at this time.” He among shippers. issue On appellant he that that stated export below was whether certain docu all “had lima received all beans among ments had been filed these rec of and the transactions the CCC that of ords. The nonexistence such docu exported he had them all.” by was ments testified thoroughness custodial two abundantly sup This evidence agents, the of search their indictment, рorted latter in and the being This tested cross-examination. clearly support turn was con sufficient to required by Rule was far than is more Compare viction under the statute. 44(b) Pro of of Civil the Federal Rules Debrow, United States v. 346 U.S. cedure, U.S.C.A., ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍incorporated ref page at 74 S.Ct. of the Federal Rules erence Rule 27 of Procedure, 18 Criminal U.S.C.A. Appellant Appellant asserts, a however, contends that con single supportеd by cannot viction court’s refusal allow the search argu- light to the conversation. witness Such error in of recent decision Department Agriculture, or about November 1954 at Los “On States of name- California, Angеles, Special Agent Doyle ly, Kennedy, within the Southern S. California, Division, Oasaus, Central District of of October Inc. had as 15,- exported Republic Mexico, did L. de Casaus make a state- Victor to the of false, pur- knоwing ment of lima 424-cwt beans Oasaus had influencing pose Commodity pui'chased of the action of the Com- from the Credit modity Corporation, agency Corporation, an truth when in and in as fact Department Agri- knew, the United States there of culture, of then and well defendant purpose obtaining quantity and for the lesser such had much beans money property actually exported Republic himself and and other been valuе, things by Casaus, that he did then Inc.” Mexico state to officer of there counsel, the midway I find that 353 U.S. assistance Jencks appellant think 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. We trial asked holding application has no was ordered to be allowed to export the Jencks periods us. The record shows declarations the situation before testimony encompassing the claimed two Customs dates above, specified agents, shipments and 3 mentioned wаs material in counts 1 only 1 and 3 of indictment. witnesses Government periods in- After the there indictment. motion had testified that these government spection shipments had been made the were no records of such voluntarily Actually appellant. appellant counts. did not dismissed those two government’s testimony spect and1 wit- *4 the counts these records because they to related, nesses became immaterial therefоre which dismissed. to were prosecution’s case, appellant had appellant complaint by the and No can made be government docu- no for the of need aid as this. to accuracy the of ments test the further to along, pages and 160 further Some testimony. days later, for asked defendant three Affirmed. relating something 2 else request to think, is, I but stated as Judge spe- (concurring POPE, Circuit unintelligible. is wholly was said What cially). mаrgin.1 copied in the something say I think in order it to is proof The Government’s that had been specification of on about error based bought large quantities surplus of beans require a of refusal the court to Commodity appellant production for of customs records office Corporation prices at were sold reduced inspection. Appellant’s pres- defendant’s market, rather him on the domestic inadequate. entation Wholly apart is of this most exported represented. He than as he language our from the Corporation Mexican furnished had U.S.C.A., relating form Rule to landing receipts proven to which were briefs, fundamental contents it is truck, supposedly A false. check of his be hauling duty here appellant of an it is the Mexico, showed lima beans to intelligible present to so brief layer lima beans a thin that behind this сan what court learn therefrom load, supposed its whole which was to be talking party is about. products. were other argues appellant Here mo- about his tion, application request per- interpretation liberal The most records, given mitted to examine or appellant’s to re- can be stated single but quest his brief not one ref- contains that he to is wanted have for any page erence tо of the ten-volume spection all of the customs records of record, quote nor does export period state declarations appli- substance of the asserted motion or from March to October 1954. The By search, cation. no dint of ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍which export indicates that dec- evidence such required per day, court should be without make numbered some 400 larations wanted, your 1. “Mx-.Lavine: IWliat Hon- between 1st аnd June of Mexico March or, in reference to Counts 2 and which 10th. only your are the counts left— finish “The Court: Go ahead and you “The Court: What want is with motion. relation to what? Lavine: Then “Mr. as to Count manner, “Mr. Lavine: Count 2 was аs to the the same of ex- the same exports by Casaus, port possession on file of the Government Inc., 1, 1954, 1, 1954, from March to and includ- lima beans from March as to ing 10, showing exports by Casaus, 0, 1954, showing June the record Octоber Inc., Bros., quantity Casaus New Mexico Bean with the Government file Company, others, exported Republic and those those names beans of lima gave you quantity I as to the those of ex- Mexico named.” рorts they Republic which had to the days, weighed make, pounds. these, which would for this 150 Even something thought which many like documents “sounds like thou- asking produced appellant dealing for sands was with documents to me— stage of people, examination at this his use and other of con- other transactions require trial. The court offered this fidential nature.” larger, The demand production any this production massive resembles the might sрec- personnel character ify defendant demand “a carload of by him, representing exports jackets” but v. referred in United States Echeles, denied the blanket motion as “too broad certiorаri and all-inclusive.” denied 350 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. 739. present no The facts of case complaint There also re- problem is about the similar treated in to that grant motion, (Jencks fusal of by made case the court to Jeneks triаl, appellant 1 L.Ed.2d 353 1103). midst seeking depositions appellant take Mexico. There What was showing any discovery, solely no excuse for failure were documents relating comply to notice the rules Gov- fоr use on cross-examination of *5 rights taking depositions, accused’s or of reason ernment witness. An request. discovery, procedure en- to for such a belated and the same, in the Crimi- force the are statеd 17). (Rules extent nal Rules 16 and rights is discussed reach those Dairy in Bowman Co. 879. rights demand I think spection defendant’s of the customs subject same to would

referred rights obtain docu- limitations as his ments, discovery, Rules under toor have CORPORATION, SNAP-ON ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍TOOLS Plаintiff-Appellee, case, Dairy As noted the Bowman right supra, procure LADD, Inc., WINKENWEDER & possession the Government Defendant-Appellant. subject Rule 17 is trial court’s modify No. 11991. power quash subpoena 17(c) Under therefоr. Rule the trial Appeals States Court may compliance take “if court such action Seventh Circuit. oppressive.” would be unreasonable Dec. midway demand, Here a trial, made each of doсu- some ments, suspension would involve purpose, ap- of the trial would

pear be a demand which properly ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍unrea- discretion could find

its all, appellant no After sonable. showing made proposed to indicate his likely up any specified

search was to turn

documents.

I have noted above that the court or- inspection produced for dered the records periods the limited involved in brought 1 and 3. These were They court. filled seven into boxes and