United States v. Maria Ann Dior, United States of America v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

The principal question this criminal case requires us to decide is whether an order granting a new trial, after a jury’s verdict of guilty, is appealable before retrial.

On May 2, 1978, a federal grand jury returned a three count indictment against appellee, Maria Ann Dior. Count 1 charged her with knowingly smuggling four fur coats into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 . 1 Count 2 charged her with wilfully attempting to introduce imported merchandise by means of false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 . 2 Count 3 charged her with knowingly transporting stolen merchandise with a value of $5,000 or more in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 . 3

The jury acquitted Dior on count 2, but found her guilty on counts 1 and 3. She filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c) or for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. The district court granted a new trial on count 1 and entered a judgment of acquittal on count 3. The Government appeals both rulings and alternatively challenges the new trial order by writ of mandamus.

Count 1: Appealability of the New Trial Order

The district court determined that an incorrect…

concurring and dissenting:

I join with the majority as to Count I but must dissent from affirmance of the post-verdict judgment of acquittal on Count III.

The majority concludes that the jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the fur coats ($13,690 in Canadian Dollars) equaled the sum of $5,000 in United States Currency, because the government did not offer proof of the exchange rate in effect at the time. The four cases cited to support this conclusion are clearly distinguishable for in each the reviewing court reversed only after finding total absence of any evidence of value submitted to the jury.

In United States v. Wilson, 284 F.2d 407 (4th Cir. 1960), the government offered no proof of the value of 72 stolen rifles and the court noted that had evidence been introduced for even a single rifle it would have been sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Similarly, in United States v. Whetzel, 589 F.2d 707 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the government introduced no evidence of the market value of stolen tapes but instead tried to measure their value by the song recorded thereon. The court rejected the approach, holding that under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 the value of the…

671 F.2d 351 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maria Ann DIOR, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. No. 80-1497. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1981. Decided March 15, 1982. Christine McKenna Moore, Seattle, Wash., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; John C. Merkel, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., on brief. Irwin Schwartz, Federal Public Defender, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before PREGERSON and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and KARLTON, * District judge. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 The principal question this criminal case requires us to decide is whether an order granting a new trial, after a jury's verdict of guilty, is appealable before retrial. 2 On May 2, 1978, a federal grand jury returned a three count indictment against appellee, Maria Ann Dior. Count 1 charged her with knowingly smuggling four fur coats into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 . 1 Count 2 charged her with wilfully attempting to introduce…