Summary
The Tenth Circuit affirmed Rudolph Williams's conviction for armed bank robbery. The court rejected claims that a prosecutor improperly coerced a codefendant into not testifying, that the trial judge improperly answered the jury's question regarding the codefendant's availability, and that a juror's nondisclosure of a related supermarket robbery required a new trial. Senior Circuit Judge Fahy concurred, expressing concern about the prosecutor's remarks but finding no reversible error because the record did not show that the remarks reached the witness or caused her failure to testify.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor's remarks concerning impeachment, perjury, and the effect of contradictory testimony on Ware's probation improperly coerced Ware and deprived Williams of a fair trial.
- Whether the trial court improperly responded to the jury's question about whether Ware could have testified.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial based on juror Dillon's failure to disclose the robbery of a store associated with his business.
Holdings
- The record did not establish that Ware was unavailable in a manner amounting to trial-court error or that the prosecutor caused her failure to testify. The prosecutor's remarks, made outside the jury's presence and without Ware present, did not constitute improper coercion.
- The trial court did not err in answering that Ware was a competent witness and could have testified if called by either side.
- The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. A new trial was not warranted absent a showing of actual bias, intentional withholding, or circumstances compelling imputation of inherent bias as a matter of law.
Key quotations
“In no sense can the prosecutor's reminder of perjury or impeachment as a possible consequence of testifying be viewed as improperly coercing the witness not to testify.” (418 F.2d at 375)
“The instruction was accurate, and the conviction does not rest on an equivocal instruction on a basic issue.” (418 F.2d at 376)
“In the absence of a showing of actual bias or an intentional withholding of the facts, there is little in the record from which we can conclusively presume that the non-disclosure was obvious disqualification and inherent prejudice as a matter of law.” (418 F.2d at 377)
“Defendant is entitled to a fair trial, but not a perfect trial.” (418 F.2d at 377)
Factual background
The Falun State Bank in Falun, Kansas, was robbed on October 5, 1967. Williams was tried and convicted of armed bank robbery after codefendants Haycock and Ware pleaded guilty. Ware was subpoenaed at the defense's request but did not testify, and the prosecutor stated that contradictory testimony could be impeached and could affect Ware's probation. After trial, the defense learned that juror John S. Dillon, Jr., was associated with a supermarket chain whose Wichita store had been robbed two weeks before Williams's trial.
Procedural history
Williams, William Haycock, and Deloris Ware were indicted for bank robbery and aiding and abetting. Haycock pleaded guilty before trial, and Ware pleaded guilty after the jury was empaneled but before trial began. Williams was convicted by a jury, and the district court denied his motion for a new trial based on juror Dillon's voir dire nondisclosure. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence; rehearing was denied January 16, 1970.