United States v. James Allen Hibler

Hibler appeals from his convictions of robbing a United States mail carrier ( 18 U.S.C. § 2114 ) and possessing stolen mail ( 18 U.S.C. § 1708 ), asserting insufficiency of the evidence, failure of the prosecutor to disclose evidence valuable to the defense, and various procedural errors of the trial judge. After one trial ended in a mistrial, Hibler was found guilty by a jury on both counts at his second trial. We reverse.

The facts concerning the robbery itself are undisputed: the victim was delivering mail on August 13, 1970, when he was stopped at approximately 11:30 a. m. by three Negro men in a 1958 black Chevrolet parked in a driveway which crossed the sidewalk on which he was proceeding. The man sitting in the front passenger seat of the car exhibited a gun and ordered the victim to “come here.” The victim complied. He was then told to put the mail in his hand in his bag, drop the mailbag and run away. He did as he was told, but managed to get the license number of the car (IAF 570). The victim testified that the man with the gun wore a black hat with a wide, floppy brim, and a black T-shirt. At approximately 3:00 p. m. the same day Hibler was arrested near his home while…

(concurring specially):

It has been long thought that a federal rule exists, to wit: That a defendant can be convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice witness. This “rule” supposedly grew out of the cases of Holmgren v. U. S., 217 U.S. 509 , 30 S.Ct. 588 , 54 L.Ed. 861 (1910), and later Caminetti v. U. S., 242 U.S. 470 , 37 S.Ct. 192 , 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917). In Caminetti the court said, at page 495, 37 S.Ct. at page 198 , it is:

It is important to note that the key word “uncorroborated” was omitted from the last sentence in the above quote. That omission was not unintentional. Although the testimony of an accomplice witness in the case was most damaging to the defendant, there was indeed some important corroboration. The defendant took the stand in his own behalf, but declined to answer questions detrimental to his case or put forth defenses to them. The corroboration was the inference to be drawn from the defendant’s silence concerning incriminating matters. Therefore, the court in Caminetti could not have been concerned with the issue of uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice as the only convicting evidence. The court there gave the real test when it…

(dissenting) :

The opinions of my colleagues show great concern about the rule which permits a conviction where the only evidence is the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. That is not our problem here. Although unable to identify Hibler, Mr. Bryarly, the victim of the robbery, did substantiate Haynes’ story as to the details of the robbery.

This is a case where the undisclosed evidence was possibly useful to the defense but not likely to have changed the verdict. Cf. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

There was no error with respect to the restriction of cross-examination. The trial judge made available an adequate substitute for a written transcript of the prior inconsistent statement. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971).

I would affirm.

463 F.2d 455 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Allen HIBLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-1322. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 5, 1972. Victor Sherman (argued), of Nasatir, Sherman & Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant. William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Joseph H. Golant, Asst. U. S. Attys., Eric A. Nobles, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District Judge. * DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 Hibler appeals from his convictions of robbing a United States mail carrier ( 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2114 ) and possessing stolen mail ( 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1708 ), asserting insufficiency of the evidence, failure of the prosecutor to disclose evidence valuable to the defense, and various procedural errors of the trial judge. After one trial ended in a mistrial, Hibler was found guilty by a jury on both counts at his second trial. We reverse. 2 The facts concerning the robbery itself are undisputed: the victim was delivering mail on August 13, 1970, when he was stopped at approximately 11:30 a. m. by three Negro men in a 1958 black Chevrolet parked in a driveway which crossed the sidewalk on which he was…