United States v. Upton
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
June 29, 1994, Decided
[*733] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GLASSER, United States District Judge:
The twenty-nine count Superseding Indictment in this case arises out of charges of falsification of airplane maintenance records for Eastern Air Lines, Inc. ("Eastern"), at John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK") in New York City, and Hartsfield Airport ("Hartsfield") in Atlanta. Defendants are also charged with obstructing the administration of the law by, among [**2] other things, testifying falsely before the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation ("FAA"), regarding their knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy to falsify Eastern's maintenance records.
For the purposes of this memorandum and order, the defendants will be referred to as follows. The defendants who worked at JFK, Thomas Lewis ("Lewis"), Joseph Moser ("Moser"), Charles Catarelli ("Catarelli"), Roy Hardy ("Hardy"), Robert Knox ("Knox"), Jacques Jean ("Jean") and Stephen Jones ("Jones"), will [**3] be referred to as the "JFK Defendants." The defendants who worked at Hartsfield in Atlanta, Edward Hay ("Hay"), Charles Bray ("Bray"), Hollis Huffman ("Huffman"), K. Ray Stooksbury ("Stooksbury"), and Robert Zuegel ("Zuegel"), will be referred to as the "Atlanta Defendants." Upton worked at Eastern's headquarters in Miami, Florida.
I. Motion to Dismiss or Sever
A. Impermissible Joinder
The Atlanta defendants, Knox, and Upton claim that they were improperly joined in the indictment and that their trials should be severed, pursuant to Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits joinder of multiple defendants if they are alleged to have participated in a common scheme or plan. United States v. Bernstein, 533 F.2d 775, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 998, 50 L. Ed. 2d 608, 97 S. Ct. 523 (1976). It is well settled that ] the good-faith inclusion of a conspiracy count establishes the requisite common scheme or plan and is sufficient to support joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b). United States v. Uccio, 917 F.2d 80, 87 (2d Cir. 1990); [**4] United States v. Aiken, 373 F.2d 294, 299-300 (2d Cir.). cert. denied, 389 U.S. 833, 19 L. Ed. 2d 93, 88 S. Ct. 32 (1967). Joinder of a conspiracy count with substantive counts arising from the conspiracy is proper because the conspiracy charge provides a common link and demonstrates the extension of a common plan. Bernstein, 533 F.2d at 789; United States v. Smith, 789 F.2d 196, 206 (3rd Cir.) ("As long as the government has charged conspiracy in good faith, an allegation of conspiracy is a sufficient reason for trying the conspiracy and all substantive offenses together"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 (1986).
[**5] An exception to this general rule is that where counts unrelated to the general conspiracy are alleged, the government has the burden of showing that they are a part of the [*734] conspiracy. See United States v. Carrozza, 728 F. Supp. 266, 270 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), aff'd, 956 F.2d 1160 (2d Cir. 1992) (table). In this case all the counts contained in the Superseding Indictment are clearly related to the conspiracy count. This is so, even with regard to the obstruction of justice count, which alleges that certain defendants testified falsely before the FAA. The indictment alleges that the false testimony was a critical component in the over-arching scheme to defraud the federal government and was a part of the original conspiracy. Accordingly, joinder of all the counts complies with Rule 8(b). See United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217, 229. (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951, 80 L. Ed. 2d 540, 104 S. Ct. 2154 (1984).Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
856 F. Supp. 727 *; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8873 **
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. EDWARD UPTON, THOMAS LEWIS, JOSEPH MOSER, EDWARD HAY, CHARLES CATARELLI, STEPHEN JONES, ROY HARDY, ROBERT KNOX, HOLLIS HUFFMAN, CHARLES BRAY, K. RAY STOOKSBURY, ROBERT ZUEGEL, and JACQUES JEAN, Defendants.
indictment, documents, defendants', conspiracy, severance, counts, falsified, cases, exculpatory, discovery, mailing, records, wire, preparation, interstate, obstruct, alleges, charges, bill of particulars, aircraft, defraud, obstruction of justice, motion to dismiss, grand jury, impede, transmissions, transactions, witnesses, perjury, impeachment
Criminal Law & Procedure, Inchoate Crimes, Conspiracy, Elements, General Overview, Accusatory Instruments, Joinder & Severance, Joinder of Defendants, Standards of Review, Plain Error, Juries & Jurors, Province of Court & Jury, Trials, Judicial Discretion, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Presumptions, Defective Joinder & Severance, Severance by Prosecutor, Severance of Codefendants, Defenses, Conflicting Defenses, Relevance, Preservation of Relevant Evidence, Exclusion & Preservation by Prosecutors, Indictments, Contents, Content Requirements, Grand Juries, Contents, Harmless & Invited Error, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Grand Jury Requirement, Right to Indictment by Grand Jury, Fraud, Wire Fraud, Fraud Against the Government, Mail Fraud, Bill of Particulars, Multiplicity, Duplicity, Definition of Duplicity, Contracts Law, Statute of Frauds, Criminal Offenses, Obstruction of Administration of Justice, Witness Tampering, False Statements, Discovery & Inspection, Discovery by Defendant, Tangible Objects, Scope of Disclosure, Brady Materials, Brady Claims, Probation, Revocation, Governments, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Counsel, Substitution & Withdrawal, Duty of Disclosure, Witness Lists, Standards, Particularized Need Standard, Civil Litigants, Secrecy, Disclosure, Appellate Review & Judicial Discretion