United States v. Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charley

After a troublesome joint trial, a jury convicted Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charley of assault with intent to commit rape on an Indian Reservation. This week-long trial involved the contradictory testimony of witnesses, the temporary exclusion of family members from the courtroom, prosecutorial misconduct, and several motions for severance and mistrial.

Sherlock and Charley raise many errors. They contend that excessive preindictment delay denied them due process; the court failed to afford them a public trial; its failure to sever the trials, as well as prose-cutorial misconduct, denied them a fair trial; and it erred in admitting hearsay testimony and in rejecting suggested jury instructions.

We reverse Sherlock’s conviction and remand for a new trial. The court committed reversible error in denying his motions for mistrial and severance primarily based on the prosecutor’s misuse of Charley’s extrajudicial statement implicating Sherlock. Although the joint trial may have prejudiced Charley, we conclude that it did not deny him a fair trial. We affirm his conviction.

GENERAL FACTS

The alleged rapes of Marie Rose Bennally and Thomascita Billie occurred several miles from…

Dissenting:

After reviewing the proceedings in this case in light of the petition for rehearing, I *1366 am convinced that a mistake has been made that cannot be cured by the mere change of nomenclature represented by the majority’s amendments to the opinion. To alleviate what the judge and prosecutor deemed the victim-witness’s distress at having to go through the ordeal of recounting her experience before the defendant’s family members, the judge expelled the family members from this portion of the proceedings. From some experience, I share the judge’s concern. But I know also that a trial judge has many means of controlling the behavior of spectators short of banishment from the public courtroom.

The majority’s amendments to the opinion in response to this concern are a nostrum premised on a faulty conclusion: “The closure order was narrowly tailored to protect Bennally and elicit her information.” I disagree, and the summary application of this label ignores the principles which call for a forewarning by the trial judge — an effort to maintain order through less drastic means than the expulsion of friends and family. Attendees cannot be simply thrown out of the courtroom…

962 F.2d 1349 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold SHERLOCK and Ronald Charley, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 87-1299, 87-1300. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 9, 1988. Decided Jan. 11, 1989. As Amended April 27, 1992. Thomas M. Hoidal, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Ariz. and John Trebon, Flagstaff, Ariz., for defendants-appellants. Thomas M. Connelly, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before: WRIGHT and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, * District Judge. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 After a troublesome joint trial, a jury convicted Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charley of assault with intent to commit rape on an Indian Reservation. This week-long trial involved the contradictory testimony of witnesses, the temporary exclusion of family members from the courtroom, prosecutorial misconduct, and several motions for severance and mistrial. 2 Sherlock and Charley raise many errors. They contend that excessive preindictment delay denied them due process; the court failed to afford them a public trial; its failure to…