United States v. Bradford S. Taylor, United States of America v. Vincent Carmen Pinto

This case involves the frustrated attempt by several individuals to sell up to $16 million of stolen blank corporate bonds to an undercover FBI agent. As a result of this attempt, Vincent Carmen Pinto was tried and convicted of transporting stolen securities in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 , possessing goods or chattels stolen from interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659 , and conspiracy to commit these two offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 . Bradford S. Taylor was also tried on these charges but was convicted only on the conspiracy charge. Both appellants challenge their convictions on various grounds.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In 1973, a blank bond issue for $25 million by A.C.F. Industries, Inc. was consigned to Emery Freight Co. in New York City for air shipment by National Air Lines to Baltimore, Maryland. The bonds, shipped by a financial printer to A.C.F. Industries, were complete except they lacked serial numbers, the names of the registered bond holders, and the signature of the assistant corporate trust officer. When the container arrived in Baltimore and was opened, the bonds were discovered missing.

Approximately twelve years…

concurring:

The court uses two measures of value to uphold the convictions. It holds that each bond had “a printed face value of $50, 000.” But an incomplete instrument has no face value. The numbers on the incompleted form do not proclaim anything until the instrument is signed and appears to be in due form. On its face an incomplete instrument proclaims its lack of value.

One of the two approaches to value taken in United States v. Bell, 742 F.2d 509 (9th Cir.1984) is to the contrary. The part of that opinion finding face value in a blank money order is not in agreement with several other cases using only street value, that is the value established by a thieves’ market, to determine the value of blank instruments. United States v. Tyers, 487 F.2d 828 (2d Cir.1973); Churder v. United States, 387 F.2d 825 (8th Cir.1968).

The latter decisions seem to me to be correct. The jury in the instant case was given no instructions as to how it should determine value other than a repetition of the words of the statute that value “means the face, par or market value, whichever is greatest” and an instruction on market value that “when a seller of securities willingly agrees to a sales…

802 F.2d 1108 21 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1233 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradford S. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Carmen PINTO, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 85-1274, 85-1278. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 10, 1986. Decided Oct. 16, 1986. James W. Erbeck, Asst. U.S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee. Lorriane J. Mansfield, Mark B. Bailus, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Before PREGERSON, POOLE and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges. POOLE, Circuit Judge: 1 This case involves the frustrated attempt by several individuals to sell up to $16 million of stolen blank corporate bonds to an undercover FBI agent. As a result of this attempt, Vincent Carmen Pinto was tried and convicted of transporting stolen securities in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314 , possessing goods or chattels stolen from interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 659 , and conspiracy to commit these two offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 . Bradford S. Taylor was also…