JOHNS v. UNITED STATES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 20413.

Attorney(S)

Charles E. Moore, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant. Allen L. Chancey, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Charles L. Goodson, U.S. Atty., for appellee.

Judges

Benjamin Franklin Cameron

Acts

Crimes And Criminal Procedure — Conspiracy — Crimes — Conspiracy To Commit Offense Or To Defraud United States

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant Fleming J. Johns was convicted of conspiring to rob a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.) insured bank. On appeal, Johns challenged the admission of a tape recording of an incriminating conversation and contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's guilty verdict. The tape recording was a copy of an original wire recording made by a machine hidden in the house of one of Johns' confederates, who was cooperating with the police. The original wire recording was available but not played because it was too quiet for the jury to hear. The appellant's counsel conceded that the tape was an accurate reproduction of the wire recording but objected to the admission of either recording.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the introduction of a tape recording copy, rather than the original wire recording, violated the "best evidence" rule.
Whether the evidence presented, including the tape recording, was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of conspiracy to rob a bank.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The tape recording was improperly admitted into evidence because it was a copy rather than the original wire recording, allegedly violating the "best evidence" rule.
The tape was partially inaudible, making it untrustworthy and insufficient as evidence to sustain the verdict.

Appellee's Arguments

The tape recording was an accurate reproduction of the original wire recording, as conceded by appellant's counsel.
There was no claim that the evidence was illegally obtained since the recording was made with the knowledge and approval of a cooperating confederate.
The admissibility of the tape recording was within the discretion of the trial court, and the probative value was a question for the jury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
18 U.S.C.A. § 371	Defines the offense of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States.	Established the statutory basis for appellant's conviction of conspiracy to rob a bank.
United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1939)	Addresses the application of the "best evidence" rule to recordings.	Supported the court's conclusion that the "best evidence" rule did not bar admission of an accurate tape reproduction.
Monroe v. United States, 234 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1956)	Trial court's discretion in admitting tape recordings as evidence.	Reinforced that admissibility of the tape was within the trial court's discretion.
United States v. Schanerman, 150 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1945)	Standards for admissibility of wire and tape recordings.	Supported the principle that probative force and admissibility of recordings are matters for the trial court and jury.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the appellant's contention regarding the "best evidence" rule, noting that the appellant's counsel conceded the tape was an accurate reproduction of the original wire recording. Therefore, the rule, even if applicable to recordings, did not prohibit the introduction of the tape copy. The court observed that there was no objection to the foundation for the tape's admission, only to its intelligibility. The trial court's discretion governed the admissibility of the tape, and questions about its clarity and trustworthiness affected only the weight of the evidence, which was properly left to the jury. Finally, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

This decision upholds the conviction of the appellant for conspiracy to rob a bank. The court's ruling confirms that accurate tape reproductions of wire recordings may be admissible evidence and that challenges to the quality of such recordings pertain to their weight rather than their admissibility. No new precedent was established; the ruling follows existing principles regarding evidentiary discretion and sufficiency of evidence.

Show full summary ...

Fleming J. JOHNS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of conspiring to rob a F.D.I.C. insured bank. On appeal, he urges that a tape recording of an incriminating conversation was improperly allowed to be introduced into evidence, and that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.

18 U.S.C.A. § 371.

The tape recording was a copy of an original wire recording made by a machine hidden in the house of one of appellant's confederates, who actually was working with the police. Inasmuch as the recording was made with that person's knowledge and approval, there is no claim that the evidence was illegally obtained.
The wire recording was available but not "played" because the volume could not be turned up loud enough for the jury to hear it. Counsel for appellant expressly stated to the court that it was conceded the tape was an accurate reproduction of the wire recording, but that the objection was to the introduction of either copy of the recording.

Appellant's argument that the introduction of the tape, rather than the original wire, recording violated the "best evidence" rule, even if that rule applies to recordings, cannot be raised, inasmuch as counsel for appellant conceded openly that the tape was an accurate re-recording of the wire. Cf. United States v. Manton, 1939, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834, 845. There was no objection that no proper foundation was laid for the introduction of the tape, the only objection being that the recording was unintelligble. With respect to the claim that the tape was so inaudible in part as to make it untrustworthy, the admissibility vel non of the tape was a matter of discretion on the part of the trial court. Monroe v. United States, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 234 F.2d 49, citing United States v. Schanerman, 1945, 3 Cir., 150 F.2d 941, 944. The probative force of the evidence was a question for the jury. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.