United States v. William T. Panza, United States of America v. John Tates

Defendants Panza and Tates appeal their convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 (d) and 371. Defendant Panza took the stand during the trial. Defendant Tates did not. The principal issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Panza’s testimony based upon his refusal to answer various questions during cross-examination that went to the heart of his defense. Defendants also raise several other complaints about other aspects of their trial. We note jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

I. Facts.

On February 28,1978 two gunmen robbed the Southwest Bank located in Solana Beach, California. Both gunmen wore ski *435 masks and carried cloth bags or pillowcases into which they stuffed the money. The robbery was executed in a “take-over” fashion, i. e., one gunman ordered everyone without money to lie on the floor while he robbed the tellers in the bank lobby; the other gunman ordered bank officials to open the vault and then took money from the vault. One gunman carried a bell timer which sounded while the other gunman was still in the vault. The first man called out to the…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

My disagreement pertains to the holdings and discussion of the majority set forth in IV. B. and C. of its opinion. My position makes it unnecessary for me to pass on the majority’s holdings set forth in V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX. Briefly put, I would permit the striking of the defendant’s testimony, in its entirety, only after the trial judge has *442 made an articulated evaluation of the probable effectiveness of other sanctions, including civil contempt, and a specific determination that other sanctions will not serve the ends of justice. On the record of this case it is uncertain whether the district court weighed the possible effectiveness of sanctions other than striking Panza’s testimony. Therefore, I would reverse the defendant Panza’s conviction and, because the striking of Panza’s entire testimony undoubtedly prejudiced Tate, I would also reverse Tate’s conviction.

My difference with the majority concerns whether the discretion of the trial judge to strike a defendant’s testimony in its entirety should be subject to restraints more precise than are imposed by such phrases as “reason and fairness.” To impose additional restraints is…

612 F.2d 432 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William T. PANZA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John TATES, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 78-3291, 78-3532. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 13, 1979. As Amended Jan. 2, 1980. Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1980. Eugene G. Iredale, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Judith S. Feigin, Asst. U.S. Atty. (on the brief), Michael H. Walsh, U.S. Atty., Judith S. Feigin, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before KILKENNY, SNEED, SKOPIL, * Circuit Judges. SKOPIL, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendants Panza and Tates appeal their convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 (d) and 371. Defendant Panza took the stand during the trial. Defendant Tates did not. The principal issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Panza's testimony based upon his refusal to answer various questions during cross-examination that went to the…