Percy Martin Rosenzweig and Lewis William Zettell v. United States

412 F.2d 844 Percy Martin ROSENZWEIG and Lewis William Zettell, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Nos. 22933, 22934. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 19, 1969. 1 B. W. Minsky (argued), of Minsky, Garber & Rudof, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. 2 Irving Prager, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Wm. .matthew Byrne, Jr., U.S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U.S. Atty., Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and 1 SOLOMON, District judge. SOLOMON, District Judge: 4 Percy Martin Rosenzweig and Lewis William Zettell were convicted of conspiracy to make and sell counterfeit notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and of possessing counterfeit notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 472. They appeal. We affirm. 5 Appellants claim that (1) the grand and petit juries did not represent a cross-section of the community; (2) the Government should have been required to disclose the names of its witnesses; (3) there was no evidence that they conspired to make or sell counterfeit notes; (4) the trial court told the jury Appellants were guilty of conspiracy if they conspired to commit any offense against the United States;…

Percy Martin Rosenzweig and Lewis William Zettell were convicted of con *845 spiracy to make and sell counterfeit notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and of possessing counterfeit notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 . They appeal. We affirm.

Appellants claim that (1) the grand and petit juries did not represent a cross-section of the community; (2) the Government should have been required to disclose the names of its witnesses; (3) there was no evidence that they conspired to make or sell counterfeit notes; (4) the trial court told the jury Appellants were guilty of conspiracy if they conspired to commit any offense against the United States; and (5) it was error to instruct that the jury could convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Appellants claim that primary reliance on telephone directories for jury lists results in systematic exclusion of certain groups and inclusion of others. They do not allege intentional discrimination.

The Appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the jury commissioner did not “fairly and honestly endeavo[r] to discharge [his] duty,” Thomas v. Texas, 212 U.S. 278, 283 , 29 S.Ct. 393, 394 , 53 L.Ed. 512 (1909), or…

(concurring):

I concur in the result.