United States v. Tannehill ( 1995 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 93-1709
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL DOUGLAS TANNEHILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
(March 29, 1995)
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
As the last of seven defendants in the early 1980s savings and
loan "I-30 scandal" in Texas, Paul Douglas Tannehill appeals his
convictions for conspiracy and overvaluation of land, with the
critical issue being whether his statutory or constitutional rights
to a speedy trial were violated; especially, whether, if only
argument, and not testimony or other evidence, is presented on a
pretrial motion not heard until after trial begins, the period
between filing and argument is excludable under § 3161(h)(1)(F) of
the Speedy Trial Act (excludes "[a]ny period of delay resulting
from ... any pretrial motion, from ... filing ... through ...
hearing"). (Emphasis added.) Tannehill contends also that the
evidence is insufficient, and that the district court erred in
several evidentiary rulings and in refusing a jury instruction. We
AFFIRM.
I.
In October 1987, Tannehill, a real estate appraiser, was
indicted with David Lamar Faulkner, Spencer H. Blain, Jr., James L.
Toler, Arthur Formann, Kenneth Earl Cansler, and Paul Arlin Jensen,
as a result of their involvement in a scheme in which fraudulent
real estate loans were obtained for the purchase of land and the
construction of condominiums along Interstate 30 between Dallas and
Fort Worth. See United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 756 n.9
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 193, 663 (1994).
The 88-count indictment charged that Faulkner and Toler, real
estate developers, and their employee, Cansler, arranged for Blain
and Jensen, who controlled federally-insured savings and loan
associations, to make loans for the purchase of building sites and
completed condominium developments at inflated prices, and charged
that Tannehill and Formann, a real estate appraiser employed by
Tannehill, furthered the scheme by supplying intentionally inflated
appraisals.1 Tannehill was charged in 13 counts with conspiracy,
overvaluation of land, wire fraud, and aiding and abetting the
misapplication of funds.
All seven defendants were tried in Lubbock beginning in early
1989, but a mistrial was declared that September, after the jury
1
Further details about the scheme are provided in our court's
two published opinions affirming the convictions resulting from the
two trials in addition to Tannehill's. See United States v.
Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Jensen, 41
F.3d 946 (5th Cir. 1994).
- 2 -
was unable to reach a verdict. A second trial began in Dallas in
June 1991, but pretrial publicity made it impossible to select a
jury in Dallas. The district court severed Faulkner, Toler, Blain,
and Formann from Tannehill and the other two defendants, and
transferred their four cases to the Western District of Texas
(Midland). Their trial began in September 1991, and all were
convicted that November. See Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 754-55.
After the Midland trial, Cansler pleaded guilty, and Jensen
and Tannehill were severed, at their requests. Jensen was tried
and convicted in October 1992. See United States v. Jensen, 41
F.3d 946 (5th Cir. 1994). Tried in April 1993, Tannehill was
acquitted on the wire fraud and misapplication counts and one
overvaluation count, but was convicted for conspiracy and the other
eight overvaluation counts.2 He was sentenced, inter alia, to six
2
Tannehill was convicted on the following counts: count 1
charged that, between January 1, 1982, and January 9, 1984,
Tannehill and six others conspired to misapply funds of federally-
insured institutions, to unlawfully participate in transactions and
loans of federally-insured institutions, to commit wire fraud, to
overvalue land for the purpose of influencing federally-insured
institutions, to transport in interstate commerce money taken by
fraud, and to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371; counts 2-4 charged that the seven defendants aided and
abetted each other in knowingly and willfully overvaluing land to
influence the actions of a federally-insured financial institution
by fabricating, executing and submitting spurious appraisals on
three tracts of land, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2; and
counts 5, 6, 11, 19, and 20 charged Tannehill and Formann with
violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2, for submitting false
appraisals for five tracts of land.
Tannehill was acquitted on counts 9 and 10, which charged all
seven defendants with wire fraud in connection with the transfer of
funds in connection with a development; count 12, which charged
that he and Formann aided and abetted Blain in the misapplication
of funds in connection with a development; and count 13, which
charged that he and Formann aided and abetted each other in the
- 3 -
years imprisonment and fined $30,000.
II.
Tannehill contends that the indictment should have been
dismissed for violations of his speedy trial rights; that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and that the
district court erred by permitting the Government to base its case
on summary evidence, by admitting prior trial testimony of a
deceased Government witness, and by refusing his requested
instruction on reliance on the advice of counsel.
A.
The district court denied Tannehill's motion to dismiss the
indictment for violations of his rights to a speedy trial under
both the Speedy Trial Act and the Constitution. We turn first to
the statutory claim.
1.
"We review the facts supporting a Speedy Trial Act ruling
using the clearly erroneous standard and the legal conclusions de
novo." United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1566 (5th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1113 (1995).
Although more than five and one-half years elapsed between
indictment in October 1987 and trial in April 1993, Tannehill's
statutory claim focuses only on the period between September 4,
submission of a false appraisal for that same development.
- 4 -
1992 (filing of several pretrial motions by Tannehill), and the
April 1993 trial.3 Accordingly, in reviewing his statutory claim,
we do not consider any delays prior to then.
"The Speedy Trial Act[, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174,] requires that
a federal criminal defendant be tried within seventy days of his
indictment or appearance in front of a judicial officer, whichever
comes later. If the defendant is not brought to trial within this
statutory period, the indictment must be dismissed." United States
v. Williams, 12 F.3d 452, 459 (5th Cir. 1994).
However, "[t]he Act provides for a number of `exclusions' in
which time that passes is not charged against the 70-day clock."
Id. One of those provisions, § 3161(h)(1)(F), excludes "[a]ny
period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the
defendant, including but not limited to ... delay resulting from
any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the
conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such
motion". 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) (emphasis added).
3
At oral argument, Tannehill's counsel stated that the focus of
his Speedy Trial Act claim was on the period after June 1991. But,
his briefs and arguments focus only on post-September 4, 1992. The
district court found that the period between the June 1991 mistrial
and the receipt in September 1992 of the transcript of the severed
co-defendants' trial was excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8).
See note 5, infra.
- 5 -
For motions that "require" a hearing,4 subsection (F)
"excludes the time between the filing of the motion and the hearing
on that motion, even if a delay between the motion and the hearing
is unreasonable". United States v. Johnson, 29 F.3d 940, 942-43
(5th Cir. 1994). Also excluded is the "time after a hearing needed
to allow the trial court to assemble all papers reasonably
necessary to dispose of the motion, e.g., the submission of post-
hearing briefs". Id. And, after the court has received all of the
submissions, the motion is considered to have been taken "under
advisement", and the speedy trial clock is tolled for 30 days,
pursuant to subsection (J), which provides for the exclusion of
"delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty
days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is
actually under advisement by the court". 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(1)(J).
If a motion does not require a hearing, subsection (J)
provides for the exclusion of 30 days after the court receives all
submissions from counsel regarding the motion. Johnson, 29 F.3d at
943. "If the court has several motions on which it must rule,
however, this time period can be reasonably extended." Williams,
12 F.3d at 460.
4
See Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 329 (1986);
United States v. Johnson, 29 F.3d 940, 942-43 (5th Cir. 1994); and
Bermea, 30 F.3d at 1567, for use of the word "required". Because
Tannehill requested a hearing, as discussed infra, and because, in
any event, it is undisputed that at least one or more of the
motions at issue "required" a hearing, we need not address what
causes a hearing to be "required".
- 6 -
In May 1992, the district court set Tannehill's trial on its
October 1992 docket. On September 4, however, Tannehill filed
numerous pretrial motions, including a motion to dismiss for
violations of the Speedy Trial Act, as well as a motion for a
hearing on all pretrial motions. The Government's response, and
Tannehill's reply, were submitted by the end of September. On
November 20, the district court, sua sponte, reset the trial for
its February 1993 docket. Tannehill filed additional motions on
January 19 and 22, 1993, including a motion in limine. On January
29, the district court reset trial for April 5, 1993.
No hearing was conducted on Tannehill's motions prior to
trial. After the jury was sworn, the court heard arguments on some
of Tannehill's motions, including the motion to dismiss for
violation of the Speedy Trial Act, filed in September 1992, and the
motion in limine, filed in January 1993.
One basis for disposing of Tannehill's Speedy Trial Act claim
turns on whether the arguments on his pretrial motions, heard after
the jury was sworn, constitute a "hearing" within the meaning of §
3161(h)(1)(F).5 Although our court has held that the speedy trial
5
The district court ruled that the delay was excludable under
§ 3161(h)(8), which provides for the exclusion of "[a]ny period of
delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own
motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the
request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted
such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of
justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of
the public and the defendant in a speedy trial". 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(8)(A). Subsection (B) of § 3161(h)(8) sets forth several
factors for the district court to consider in determining whether
to grant an "ends of justice" continuance pursuant to subsection
(A). Among those factors is "[w]hether the case is so unusual or
so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the
- 7 -
clock is tolled for the period between the filing of a motion and
a hearing on that motion, even if the hearing is not conducted
until trial, those cases do not address the meaning of "hearing"
under § 3161(h)(1)(F). See, e.g., Bermea, 30 F.3d at 1568
("pending motions carried for hearing just before or during trial
will toll the speedy trial clock indefinitely"); United States v.
Santoyo, 890 F.2d 726, 728 (5th Cir. 1989) (time between filing of
pretrial motion in limine and hearing on motion at trial
excludable), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 959 (1990).
The Act does not define what constitutes a "hearing", and the
parties have not cited, nor have we found, any authorities
addressing the issue.6 In other contexts, "hearing" has been
defined in various ways. See, e.g., Buxton v. Lynaugh, 879 F.2d
140, 144-45 (5th Cir. 1989) ("hearing", as used in habeas corpus
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), "does not necessarily require an
evidentiary hearing and ... factfinding based on a record can in
some circumstances be adequate"), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031
(1990); State v. Orris, 26 Ohio App. 2d 87, 269 N.E.2d 623, 624
(1971) (the term "hearing" suggests "to `give audience to'");
prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law,
that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial
proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits
established by this section". 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).
Because we conclude that the delay was excludable under §
3161(h)(1)(F), we need not address whether the delay was excludable
also under § 3161(h)(8).
6
United States v. Gonzales, 897 F.2d 1312, 1315 (5th Cir.
1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1029 (1991), seems to imply that
"oral arguments" on the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
a speedy trial, conducted on the day trial began, constitute a
"hearing" within the meaning of subsection (F).
- 8 -
Black's Law Dictionary 721 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "hearing" as
"[a] proceeding of relative formality (though generally less formal
than a trial), generally public, with definite issues of fact or
law to be tried, in which witnesses are heard and evidence
presented").
In determining what Congress meant by its use of the word
"hearing" in subsection (F), we must consider the context in which
the word is used and give to the term its ordinary meaning within
that context. See, e.g., Ardestani v. I.N.S., ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.
Ct. 515, 519 (1991) (when word used in statute has many dictionary
definitions, it "must draw its meaning from its context"); John Doe
Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 153-56 (1989) (looking to
"ordinary meaning" and purpose of statute in interpreting statutory
term). Subsection (F) deals with the exclusion of "any" delays,
caused by the pendency of pretrial motions, from the time
limitations imposed by the Act; applies to "any pretrial motion";
and excludes, inter alia, the period between filing and hearing.
(Emphasis added.) Some motions require the presentation of
testimony or other evidence (for example, a motion to suppress);
others do not (for example, Tannehill's motion in limine). In
light of Congress' intent that subsection (F) apply to any pretrial
motion, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the presentation
of testimony or other evidence is an essential prerequisite for a
"hearing" on a motion within the meaning of that subsection.
We need not determine the precise parameters for a "hearing"
under subsection (F), because it is clear that the term includes a
- 9 -
situation in which the district court hears argument of counsel and
considers it prior to making its ruling, as was done in this case.
Therefore, the entire period between September 4, 1992 (the date on
which Tannehill filed his pretrial motions) and the hearing
conducted at trial is excludable under subsection (F).7 See
Bermea, 30 F.3d at 1568 (speedy trial clock tolled by motions which
were ultimately heard and ruled upon during trial); United States
v. Gonzales, 897 F.2d 1312, 1314-16 (5th Cir. 1990) (period
following filing of motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation,
decided after oral argument on the first day of trial, excludable
under § 3161(h)(1)(F)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1029 (1991);
Santoyo, 890 F.2d at 728 (period following filing of pretrial
motion in limine excludable under § 3161(h)(1)(F) even though
motion was carried for hearing during trial); United States v.
Riley, 991 F.2d 120, 123-24 (4th Cir.) (although resolution of
pretrial motion to suppress was not concluded until trial, entire
period between its filing and its resolution was excludable under
§ 3161(h)(1)(F)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 392
(1993).
7
The Supreme Court has stated that Congress intended to exclude
all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the
hearing on that motion, regardless of whether a delay in holding
that hearing is "reasonably necessary". Henderson v. United
States, 476 U.S. at 330. Our court has noted that "[a]n exception
might be justified in a particularly egregious case, for example,
when defendants have presented repeated unsuccessful requests for
hearings or ... other credible indication that a hearing had been
deliberately refused with intent to evade the sanctions of the
Act". United States v. Walker, 960 F.2d 409, 413 (5th Cir.)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 443 (1992). Tannehill does not claim such an
exception.
- 10 -
2.
Alternatively, Tannehill claims violation of the Sixth
Amendment's guarantee that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy ... trial". U.S. Const.
amend. VI. "In resolving a constitutional speedy-trial claim, we
must examine: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the
delay, (3) when the defendant asserted his speedy trial rights, and
(4) any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay."
United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1042 (5th Cir.) (citing Barker
v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.
Ct. 530 (1994), and cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1165
(1995).
The Government concedes, as it must, that the delay was
"extraordinarily long", but maintains that it was reasonable under
the Sixth Amendment for the same reasons that it was permissible
under the Speedy Trial Act. In response to Tannehill's
constitutional claim, the district court ruled, in part, that the
delay was necessitated by the complexity of the case, combined with
the need for the lengthy trial records that were essential to
Tannehill's defense.8
Tannehill asserts that he was prejudiced by the delay because
(1) he became insolvent due to the cost of defending the case, has
been unable to obtain any significant work as an appraiser due to
8
The Lubbock trial transcript was not completed until June
1991; and the Midland trial transcript did not become available
until September 1992, after Tannehill had filed his pretrial
motions on September 4.
- 11 -
adverse publicity, and thus had to rely on appointed counsel; and
(2) three material witnesses died following the mistrial. On the
other hand, the district court ruled that Tannehill was not
prejudiced but, instead, benefited from his counsel's opportunity
to review and use transcripts from the other trials.
We agree; the trial transcript reflects several occasions on
which Tannehill's counsel used the transcripts for impeachment or
in an attempt to secure favorable evidentiary rulings. And,
Tannehill, who was represented at trial by appointed counsel, has
not shown prejudice to his defense as the result of his insolvency.
Finally, as the district court also ruled, Tannehill has shown no
prejudice from the deaths of the three witnesses, because he has
not related the substance of their testimony, or shown how it would
have affected his defense.
B.
Tannehill contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support his convictions for conspiracy and overvaluation. Our
narrow standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence after conviction by a jury is well-established:
We must affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could
have found that the evidence established guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. We must consider the
evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, including all reasonable inferences
that can be drawn from the evidence. The evidence
need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every
conclusion except that of guilt, and the jury is
free to choose among reasonable constructions of
the evidence.
Bermea, 30 F.3d at 1551.
- 12 -
1.
For the conspiracy conviction, Tannehill maintains that there
was no evidence that any alleged co-conspirator asked him to
fabricate or arbitrarily inflate appraisals; or that he was present
or overheard discussions about the conspiracy; or that he made
statements indicating knowledge or awareness of it; or that he
agreed to join it. But, there was ample circumstantial evidence to
support the jury's finding that Tannehill knowingly participated in
the conspiracy.
A lengthy recitation of the evidence is unnecessary. Our
review of the trial transcript reveals numerous examples of
circumstantial evidence of guilt, including Tannehill's secretary's
testimony that, when she asked him why he did not terminate his
relationship with the I-30 clients, he responded that he was "in
too deep and I can't get out. I have to unload my condos first".
Although Tannehill asserts that the secretary admitted, on cross-
examination, that he could have been referring to the large
accounts receivable balance owed his firm by the savings and loan
association, this is precisely the type of alternative hypothesis
of innocence that the evidence need not exclude. The jury was free
to reject this explanation.
Other circumstantial evidence of Tannehill's participation in
the conspiracy includes, for example, testimony about conversations
in which he participated, reflecting his knowledge that sales of
completed condominiums in the I-30 area were poor and, thus, that
high appraisals were unwarranted; and his admission to another I-30
- 13 -
condominium developer that he had been "forced" by Faulkner to
include Formann as a partner in the condominium development in
which he had invested. It goes without saying that, although
Tannehill presented conflicting evidence, "the jury is the final
arbiter of the credibility of witnesses". Bermea, 30 F.3d at 1552.
There is no basis upon which to overturn its conspiracy verdict.
2.
For his convictions on eight overvaluation counts, Tannehill
contends that the evidence was insufficient because there was no
evidence that he knew, or should have known, that the appraisals
were false. He asserts that the evidence showed that his staff
appraiser and co-defendant, Formann, gathered the data and prepared
the appraisals; that there was no evidence that he conspired with
Formann, or was aware that Formann was preparing false appraisals;
and that he performed responsibly as a review appraiser in
accordance with then prevailing standards.
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, the Government
was required to prove that Tannehill knowingly made a false
statement as to a material fact to a financial institution, for the
purpose of influencing the institution's actions. United States v.
Thompson, 811 F.2d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 1987). There was ample
evidence from which a rational juror could have found that
Tannehill knew that the appraisals overvalued the property. The
appraisals valued the property at 20-30% more than the amount for
which it was being sold. There was testimony that the appraised
values had to be higher than the sales prices so that the lending
- 14 -
institutions, which loaned only 70-80% of the appraised value of
the property, could fund 100% of the costs, thus allowing the
investor/developer to pay no money down and often receive "up-
front" money at the closings.
Moreover, sales of Tannehill's own condominium units in the
area were poor, supporting an inference that he could not have
assigned such high appraised values to other property in the area
in good faith. Tannehill's assertion that his units were not
available for sale until October 1982, and that the appraisals at
issue were made either before or shortly thereafter, is unavailing
in light of evidence that efforts to pre-sell the units prior to
their completion were unsuccessful and evidence that, prior to the
dates of the appraisals at issue, Tannehill participated in
conversations with other I-30 developers in which they discussed
poor sales of completed units.
Although Tannehill asserts that there was no evidence that he
was aware of Formann's illegal activities until he fired Formann in
February 1983, after he learned that Formann was responsible for
forging his signature on an appraisal, which occurred after the
appraisals at issue were submitted, the Government introduced
expert testimony that the inconsistencies and unexplained
adjustments in the appraisals could not be attributed to
incompetence or negligence, and that an experienced appraiser
should have detected them. In short, the jury chose to reject
Tannehill's attempt to place all of the blame on Formann, and its
decision to do so is supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we
- 15 -
conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find
that Tannehill knew that the appraisal reports he signed reflected
overinflated values.
C.
Tannehill presents two evidentiary issues: use of summary
evidence; and use of prior testimony of a deceased witness.
1.
Tannehill contends that the district court erred by permitting
the Government to base its case on summary evidence. First, he
claims that charts summarizing the transactions at issue were
misleading and inaccurate, and contained information that the
Government's expert, on cross-examination, admitted an appraiser
should not be expected to know or consider in making an appraisal.
Of course, "[t]he contents of voluminous writings, recordings,
or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may
be presented in the form of chart, summary, or calculation". Fed.
R. Evid. 1006. We review the admission of evidence pursuant to
Rule 1006 only for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Winn,
948 F.2d 145, 157 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112
S. Ct. 1599 (1992). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the summary charts, because the
requirements of Rule 1006 were satisfied. The documents summarized
in the charts were voluminous, and in-court examination would have
been more than inconvenient.9 Furthermore, the charts had
9
The case agent testified that 28,000 documents (55 lateral
five-shelf file cabinets), which would fill about two-thirds of the
courtroom, were obtained through grand jury subpoenas.
- 16 -
annotations referencing the documents used to prepare them, and the
underlying documents were available to the jury. And, the district
court instructed the jury on the proper use of the summary
evidence:
Charts or summaries, and the witness's explanation
of them, are not in and of themselves evidence or
proof of any facts. If these charts or summaries
or the witness's explanation of them do not
correctly reflect facts or figures shown by the
evidence in the case, you should disregard them.
Our court has held that similar instructions were adequate to
neutralize any potential for prejudice arising from the use of such
evidence. See Winn, 948 F.2d at 157-59 & n.30.
Next, Tannehill asserts that the district court erred by
admitting the case agent's summary testimony, based on the charts,
contending that it was improper and highly prejudicial because,
given the relative brevity of the Government's case, there was no
need for summarizing, interpreting, or simplifying the evidence.
There was no abuse of discretion. The agent's testimony was
helpful to the jury in explaining the charts and the documents he
relied upon in preparing them, and Tannehill's counsel engaged in
thorough cross-examination regarding the assumptions used in
preparing the charts.
In addition, Tannehill maintains that these claimed errors
were compounded when the district court allowed the charts in the
jury room. But, as stated, there were no errors to compound. In
any event, although the charts were not admitted in evidence, a
notebook, containing copies of them, was admitted. Accordingly,
- 17 -
the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the
jury to have access to the charts during its deliberations.
Tannehill contends also that the district court erred by
permitting numerous witnesses to read from, and interpret,
documents of which they had no personal knowledge, including lay
analysis of comparable sales and other information in the
appraisals prepared by Formann. He asserts that such evidence was
prohibited by Fed. R. Evid. 602, which provides, in pertinent part,
that "[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has
personal knowledge of the matter". Even assuming that the
admission of such testimony was error, Tannehill has not shown that
it affected his substantial rights. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a).
2.
Rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows
admission of the prior testimony of a deceased witness if the
defendant "had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the
testimony by ... cross ... examination". Tannehill contends that
the district court erred by admitting the 1989 Lubbock trial
testimony of a deceased Government witness, asserting that the
testimony does not fall under Rule 804(b)(1), because Tannehill did
not have the same motive in his prior cross-examination.
Tannehill maintains that his motive for cross-examining the
witness at the Lubbock trial was sufficiently different to preclude
admission of the testimony, because he was one of seven defendants
at that trial, almost all of the cross-examination of the witness
- 18 -
was conducted by counsel for his co-defendants, and his Lubbock
trial strategy was to "disappear into the woodwork and hope for the
best".
Needless to say, we review the district court's decision to
admit the testimony only for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Amaya, 533 F.2d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied,
429 U.S. 1101 (1977). Tannehill's motive for cross-examination was
not sufficiently different to preclude admission of the testimony
under Rule 804(b)(1) merely because different counsel with
different defense theories conducted the cross-examination at the
Lubbock trial. See id. at 191-92 (Rule 804(b)(1) does not
"condition the use of prior testimony on representation by the same
counsel at both trials. Adequate opportunity for cross-examination
by competent counsel is sufficient."); Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1),
advisory committee's note ("If the party against whom [the
testimony is] now offered is the one against whom the testimony was
offered previously, no unfairness is apparent in requiring him to
accept his own prior conduct of cross-examination or decision not
to cross-examine."). Although Tannehill's 1993 trial strategy may
have changed because he was being tried alone, his motive for
cross-examination was the same as in the Lubbock trial: to
discredit the witness and separate himself from the other members
of the conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
its discretion by admitting the testimony.10
10
Prior to trial, the Government moved for admission of the
deceased witness' Lubbock testimony; Tannehill opposed the motion,
on the same grounds he urges on appeal. After the jury was
- 19 -
D.
Finally, Tannehill bases error on the district court's refusal
to give his requested reliance on the advice of counsel jury
instruction. Such refusal is reviewed only for abuse of
discretion. E.g., United States v. Sellers, 926 F.2d 410, 414 (5th
Cir. 1991). A district court may refuse "to give a requested
instruction which incorrectly states the law, is without foundation
in the evidence, or is stated elsewhere in the instructions."
United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1992). "The
refusal to give a requested jury charge is reversible error only if
the instruction was substantially correct, was not substantially
covered in the charge delivered to the jury, and it concerned an
important issue so that failure to give it seriously impaired
defendant's ability to present a given defense." Id.
Tannehill introduced evidence that one of his attorneys
attended a meeting in 1983 regarding the sale of Tannehill's
completed condominiums. He asserts that his attorneys reviewed the
documents for that transaction, concluded that full disclosure had
selected, the district court heard argument on the motion, and
granted it the next day. When the testimony was introduced, there
was a bench conference; however, it was not transcribed, so the
record does not reflect that Tannehill made a contemporaneous
objection to the admission of the testimony. Accordingly, pursuant
to United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551-53 (5th Cir. 1993)
(applying plain error review where defendant did not make
contemporaneous objection to admission of evidence that was subject
of pretrial ruling on motion in limine), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___, 114 S. Ct. 1829 (1994), it is arguable that this issue should
be reviewed only for plain error. The Government does not raise
this point; and, because we find no error under our normal abuse of
discretion standard of review, we need not address it. Counsel are
cautioned, however, of the requirement for contemporaneous
objections even when admissibility has been decided previously.
- 20 -
been made to the lender, and instructed him to proceed. Although
Tannehill was acquitted on the substantive counts relating to that
transaction, he points out that it was the subject of two overt
acts alleged in the conspiracy count.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The evidence
showed that Tannehill sought the advice of counsel only with
respect to the sale of his condominiums, and not with respect to
his appraisal activities. Tannehill's assertion that testimony
regarding the meeting at which the transaction was structured was
the only testimony which even tended to link him to the conspiracy
is erroneous; as discussed, there was other evidence of his
participation.
In any event, Tannehill's reliance on counsel was adequately
covered by the court's instruction that, if the jury found that
Tannehill acted with an honest, good faith belief that his
statements and actions were legitimate business transactions, that
would negate the specific intent required for conviction.
Tannehill's acquittal on the substantive counts relating to the
only transaction about which he consulted his lawyers tends to show
that the refusal of the instruction did not impair seriously his
ability to communicate his defense to the jury.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
- 21 -