Opposition — Morrill v. United States

Sepreme Cour, ¥. $.

FILED

JUL 21 1975

MICHAEL RODAL, JR_CLERK

. — ——--—_~--— - ——- - = —_ _——

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

+

October Term, 1975

TRICE EUGENE MORRILL, PETITIONER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

REPLY TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

on

LOWELL E. ENSUE!

Counsel for Peti

53 Muenich Cour

Haiamond, Indian

(219) 931-1709

AUTHORITIES CITED

Alford v. U.S. (1931),

282 U.S. 687, ;

75 L.Ed. 624,

, 51 S.Ct. 218 > es

Beaudine v. U.S.

368 F.2d 417, 423-4,

(C.A. 5, 1966)

Davis v. Alaska (1974),

415 U.S. 308,

39 L.Ed.2d 347

Kotteakos v. U.S. (1945),

328 U.S. 750, 765,

90 L.Ed. 1557

United States v. Kahn

472 F.2d 272 (C.A. 2),

cert. den. 411 U.S. 982

Page

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1974

TRICE EUGENE MORRILL, PETITIONER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT

REPLY TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

The Government has consistently missed

the legal point contained in the appeal

and Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

United States v. Kahn (Memorandum for

the United States in Opposition, p. 3)

is of no help to the Government. In

Kahn, 472 F.2d 272 (C.A. 2), cert. den.

411 U.S. 982, the trial court was affirmed

in denying further cross-examination of

the witness because other, independent

documentary evidence, corroborated the

testimony of the witness.

In the present instance, on re-direct

examination, the Government, for the first

time, questioned the witness, Anthony

Sedita, concerning his motive in making

a deal with the Government. The question

asked by the Assistant United States Dis-

trict Attorney trying the case was,

“Why did you make that agree-

ment? Why did you want to

make that agreement?"

(Record, p. 129).

On re-cross cxamination the defendant

attempted to enter the wide-open eviden-

tiary door by inquiring into all aspects

of the motive of the witness, including

the length of time in the federal peni-

tentiary he would potentially save him-

self. The deal on the Government's part

reduced the crime for which the witness

had already been indicted to a misdemeanor

(having a maximum potential incarceration

of only one (1) year) from a felony with

a potential penalty of ten (10) years.

The witness saved himself nine (9) years

in the penitentiary. The consideration

of nine (9) years might well have been

sufficient to cause the witness to lie

as to the identity of the defendant.

Alford v. U. S. (1931), 282 U.S. 687,

75 L.Ed. 624, 51 S. Ct. 218; Kotteakos

v. U. S. (1945), 328 U.S. 750, 765,

90 L.Ed. 1557; Beaudine v. U. S., 368

F.2d 417, 423-4 (C.A. 5, 1966).

Kahn, supra., is further distinguished

because there is no other direct or cir-

cumstantial evidence identifying the

defendant as the perpetrator of the crime

of possession of television sets. All of

the other direct evidence as to the

identity of tle defendant is against the

Government's position, including the wife

of the witness, Sedita.

The wife says the defendant was not

in her house and not in possession of the

television sets. The nephew of the wit-

ness, Sedita, said the defendant was not

eS)

in the Sedita house and not in possession

of the television sets. The husband

(Sedita) made a deal with the Government

to save himself nine (9) years. The

husband is the only person to accuse

the defendant of the crime.

A full and complete cross-examination

of the witness was not allowed the defen-

dant. The Seventh Circuit in affirming

is in conflict with the other circuits,

including the Sixth, Ninth, Fifth, First,

Third and Eighth. The Seventh Circuit

is further in conflict with the Supreme

Court in Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S.

308, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, allowing the right

to a broad and searching cross-examina-

tion for motive, interest and bias.

The Government has failed consistently

to cite any authority to sustain its

position, and the Seventh Circuit has not

stated any authority to sustain its affir-

mance. All the law is contrary to the

Government's position. Certiorari should

be granted and the trial court's judgment

reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for Petitioner

53 Muenich Court

Hammond, Indiana 46320

(219) 931-1700

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, LOWELL E. ENSLEN, Counsel for

the Petitioner, certify I have deposited

in the United States Mail, Air Mail,

postage prepaid, forty (40) copies to

the Clerk of the United States Supreme

Court, and five (5) copies to the Soli-

citor General of the United States this

16 day of July, 1975.

ota th Z. eahbor>

OWELL E. ENSLEN