# Petition — Easton v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0948%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 439 U.S. 821 ## Text ( Supreme Court, U. S FILED | APR 26 I978 BAIA cso meer «s hiCh L RODAK JR., CLERK _———— IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1977 No. 2771539 SrepHen K. Easton, Petitioner, v. Unrrep States or AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AsHer B. Lans, Attorney for Petitioner 555 Madison Avenue New York, N. Y. 10022 Rosert SterHan CoHEN Desoran E, Lans Epear J. Royce Lans Ferypers & CoHEN Of Counsel April 26, 1978 See TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Opinions Below ....................- sisnsnabileaeeagaiapaiesesengineiaianiniasiais 1 PIII. icilcsnsshshcesdsiictnninnschinebinmiesitiniamahidilamisiiastaiiidensnnisinteniidas 2 Questions Presented 2 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ...... 3 ID GE Ge GD ascent stesieeesinsatcersctiiisteininainaaicitinnens 4 A. Introductory Statement caiiieneeininanauae 5 B. Evidence of Jury Misconduct 6 C. Summary of Evidence Concerning Easton .......... 12 Reasons for Granting the Writ -......2222-2.--e.-eceeeeeeeee 15 I. Novel Issues Concerning the Interpretation and Administration of Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 31(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are Presented By the Pre-Discharge Court-Juror Interview Re- vealing Misconduct and Lack of Unanimity ...... 15 A. The Evidence Was Competent .. 16 B. There Was Sufficient Evidence of Miscon- duct And Lack of Unanimity At Bar .......... 21 C. At The Least, The Jury Should Have Been Directed To Redeliberate ~......... 22 II. Opinions Expressed By The Second Circuit In The Instant Case Conflict With The Opinions Of Other Circuits In Vital Areas Concerning The Administration Of Criminal Justice ............ 23 A. The Court Declined to Rule Upon The Pro- priety Of A Trial Court’s Private Instrue- tion of Jurors 23 ii B. The Supplemental Instructions Given By Trial Judge To Two Jurors Were Tanta- mount To an Allen Charge, As To Use of Which The Cireuit Courts Are Divided ...... III. Easton Was Denied the Right to A Proper Poll Of the JUry ........-------c-c-c-secercsesesseseeesennnsnsnensnnnnnnensnsnee IV. The Trial Court, by Admitting Into Evidence a Large Amount of Prejudicial and Irrelevant Testimony, Prevented Easton from Receiving a Fair Trial, Thus Denying Him Due Process ...... A. The Repeated Admission, Over Objection, Of Evidence Of The Unrelated, Uncharged Crime of Failing to Withhold Taxes Was Prejudicial Error ..........-----.---1-----e--ses-eeee B. The Admission Of Evidence Indicating That Easton’s Net Worth Was Substan- tially Increased Two Years After The Occurrence Of The Charged Crimes Fatally Tainted The Conviction ...........-----.--:--+0+« C. The Reception Of Alleged Financial State- ments Of the Borrowing Corporations, Without Any Authentication, Was Further IE oecenecessenencestnecanscneeecectrnenmeenacninnanesitaimennnseeti Cram ccccncecnencevnssnesesstosessesensnnsecnenmnusesonssrnsnensnanensorseessans AppenpiIces TO Petition ror A Writ OF CERTIORARI: A—Judgment and Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Binteored Mare 27, 1976 ............0-- ccccsecesceeees B—Unreported Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of New York Entered April 13, 1977 Denying Motion by Defendants Hockridge and Petri to Set Aside Verdict ...................... C—Judgment Entered June 15, 1977 ...............--.- PAGE 30 30 A-1 A-18 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) "96 Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740 (1948) ........... 22 Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) 16, 22 Beaty v. United States, 213 F.2d 712 (4th Cir. 1 cert. denied, 348 U.S. 905 (1958) Suances Bradley v. United States, 433 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1969) 32 Bruce vy. Chestnut Farms—Chevy Chase Dairy, 126 F.2d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1942) a" Cahn v. Nicholas, 453 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1971) ............ 34 Cherensky v. George Washington—East Motor Lodge, 317 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D. Pa. 1970) ........ 7 19 Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) “ ... 18, 20 Cook v. United States, 379 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1967) ... 22 Fox vy. United States, 417 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1969) ....... 20, 21 Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 917 (1976) ........ 16 Grace Lines, Inc. v. Motley, 439 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1971) Fe 2 .20, 21, 22 Hussein v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 946 (5th Cir 1968) . 84 Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) 18 Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189 (1943) ...... 33 Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, 160 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1947) ........ bah hata wie 20 Kingsport Utilities, Inc. y. Lamson, 257 F mtg tage 7 n, .2d 553 (6th McDonald v. Plese, 238 U.S. 264 (1915) oo. eeeccecceececeees 17 McNabb v. Unitec States, 318 U.S. 332, reh 319 U.S. 784 (1943) ae I 35 iv PAGE Miranda vy. United States, 255 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1958) 28, 29 Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (1956)... 35 Morgan v. United States, 355 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.), cert. GonteG, SR4 GUE. TES Cee weseniincenicnsinnainns 31 Mullin v. United States, 356 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1966) 26 Pinkerton vy. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) ....... 28 Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 (1946) ....... 35 United States v. Bailey, 468 F.2d 652 (5th Cir, 1972), reh, en banc, 480 F.2d 518 (Sth Cir, 1973) 000. 27, 28 United States v. Blake, 488 F.2d 101 (Sth Cir. 1973) ... = 34 United States v. Breland, 376 F.2d 721 (2d Cir. 1967) 20 United States v. Broadway, 477 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. RGTE) ~- Unitep States oF AMERICA, vs. SrerHen K. Easton, Defendant. Docket No. 76 Cr. 843 DBB —_—»— JUDGMENT AND Propavton/COMMITMENT ORDER Counsel: In the presence of the attorney for the gov- ernment the defendant appeared in person on this 6th month, 15th day, ’77, with counsel William Sherr. Plea: Not guilty. Finding and Judgment: There being a verdict of guilty. Defendant has been convicted as charged of the offenses of unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly embezzle, abstract, purloin and wilfully misapply the moneys, funds and eredits of the Chemical Bank and the moneys, funds and assets entrusted to the custody and care of said bank. A-23 Appendix C Title 18, U.S. Coce, §§656 and 2.); conspiracy so to do. (Title 18, U.S. Code, $371.) Sentence or Probation Order: The court asked whether defendant had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced. Because no suflicient cause to the con- trary was shown, or appeared to the court, the court ad- judged the defendant guilty as charged and convicted and ordered that: The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized rep- resentative for imprisonment for a period of Six (6) Monrus on count 1 and Fivxep $5,000.00 on count 1. Fine is to be paid within 60 days or the defendant is to be com- mitted until the fine is paid or he is otherwise discharged according to law. Imposition of sentence on count 2 is suspended. De- fendant is placed on probation for a period of THrer (3) Years, to commence upon expiration of confinement im- posed on count 1, subject to the standing probation order of this Court. Special Conditions of Probation: Defendant is con- tinued on present bail for 60 days, at which time he is to surrender for service of sentence. (SEAL) By: Clerk --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0948%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.