United States v. Daniel E. Manning and David A. Wooldridge

509 F.2d 1230 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel E. MANNING and David A. Wooldridge, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 74--1095, 74--1341, 74--1395. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Dec. 23, 1974. Rehearing Denied, February 24, 1975. James N. Barber (argued), Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants-appellants. Gregory C. Glynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for plaintiff-appellee. Before LUMBARD, * ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. OPINION EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and multiple counts of violating the registration and antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act and mail fraud. They argue that their convictions should be reversed because of prejudicial jury misconduct, erroneous instructions to the jury, delay in production of exculpatory material, insufficient evidence, reliance on the advice of counsel, and delay in the bringing of indictments against them. We affirm. 2 Appellants were participants in a wide-ranging scheme to defraud the public by the sale of unregistered stock of several shell corporations with minimal assets. The unregistered stock was sold on the basis of…

Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and multiple counts of violating the registration and antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act and mail fraud. They argue that their convictions should be reversed because of prejudicial jury misconduct, erroneous instructions to the jury, delay in production of exculpatory material, insufficient evidence, reliance on the advice of counsel, and delay in the bringing of indictments against them. We affirm.

Appellants were participants in a wide-ranging scheme to defraud the public by the sale of unregistered stock of several shell corporations with minimal assets. The unregistered stock was sold on the basis of false and misleading statements as to the actual assets and prospects of the corporations involved. Although eight persons were indicted for this conspiracy, only five stood trial. The remaining three, including Robert A. Eisenberg, the purported counsel of the appellants, were at the time of the trial fugitives in foreign countries. Of the five who were tried, only the appellants were convicted; charges against the other defendants at trial were either dismissed or resulted in verdicts of acquittal.

A…

(concurring):

I concur in my Brother Wright’s majority opinion. At the same time, however, I feel obliged to express my concern over the misconduct of one of the jurors, as well as that of the District Court’s bailiff. The district judge properly and repeatedly admonished the jurors that none of them was to discuss the proceedings with any other person prior to the submission of the cause for their deliberation. Notwithstanding, the fore- *1235 lady of the jury apparently defied the court’s admonition.

At a post-trial hearing on the question of jury misconduct, the forelady admitted that she asked the court’s bailiff early in the trial whether one could borrow money from a bank to buy stock. The bailiff answered to the effect that he thought not. 1 Furthermore, at some other time during the trial, the forelady had telephoned a bank office to make the same inquiry.

The forelady apparently believed that the answers to her questions were in some way related to the legal issues in the trial. At the jury misconduct hearing, two of the other jurors testified that during the course of the jury’s deliberations, the forelády mentioned the bailiff’s answer to her question. 2 When the…