# Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ Certiorari — Meaux v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1296%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 390 U.S. 1026 ## Text t . . . e , BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION CE ae ‘Gave ean ee ON PETITION FOR A-WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED. STATES CQURT OF ha eae FOR THE — Aes eens FIFTH, CIRCUIT © ® Me. ‘ In the Supreme Court of its Suited States ‘OCTOBER TERM, 1967 rn = 2 No. 1199 + “Hugy P, MEAuX and CHARLIE BOOTH, PETITIONERS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE tail CIRCUIT : BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPIN ION BELOW ; ‘the. opinion of the court of sgeecie is reported. at 387 F.2d 370 (Pet. App. A). , JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered ~ on January 4, 1968, A petition for rehearing was de- nied on February 7, 1968. The petition for a writ of © certiorari was filed on March 4, 1968... The jurisdic- tion of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2. , QUESTIONS sirraemnteaetiain nl ‘L Whether the closing argument of * government: counsel deprived petitioner's of a fair trial. 2. Whether. petitioners were denied the effective as- sistance of counsel. , ; STATEMENT After a trial by jury in the United States District Gourt for the Southern District of Texas petitioners Booth and Meaux' were convicted of conspiring to violate the Mann Act (18 U.S.C, 2421). On January _ 27, 1967, each was sentenced to three years’ imprison- — ment. The court of appeals affirmed (Pet. App. A). — . The .government’s ‘case was. developed primarily _ through: the testimony of Lynda Puckett. She had , met co-defendant Bergen in the latter part of August - 1965 when‘she was fifteen, and through him was in- ' troduced to petitioners. In mid-September, Bergen | and petitioners discussed. with Miss Puckett the possi- bility of her accompanying them’ to a country music convention in Nashville, Tennessee, Although she , was to be referred to as a “promotional assistant,” ’ she was advised that her primary function would be to — have sexual relations with business contacts of peti- tioners.. (R. 18-24, 27.) Miss Puckett was to receive 1 Petitioners were indicted together with Thomas Bergen ' ahd one Garris. Bergen pleaded guilty prior to trial (R. 10-12) and Garris’ case was severed (R. %.: 2 A contract was drawn up setting forth that Miss. Puckett was to be a singer, in case any law enforcement officers should happen to question her presence with the men (R. 29). SLOGE EASE RELG ES LEA EDIE LLOYD LQ AL RIS RIAD FEL LENE AEE ELIT A TOK ey sk ain a aiid ta daaliaiah baat 1% . t ~ approximately $100 per night (a portion of which + would go to Bergen) payable‘ in , lump sum at the termination of :the convention’ (R. \27, 29, 39).* | ‘ In mid-October, Miss Puckett, Bergen and Booth | drove from Texas to Nashville, Tennessee‘ (R. 30- 31).° En route Booth unsuccessfully tried to rape her in the rear seat of the car (R. 33-37). On their ar- _ rival; they checked in at the Capitol Park Motel where rooms had already been reserved for them (R. 24, 89). While at the convention, Miss Pyckett was di- rected .by Meaux and co-defendant Garris to have ‘sexual relations with several men; she thereafter en- ° gaged in sexual intercourse with a man-named Regan _ aad several other persons (R. 40-50, 52, 212-213). At the conclusion of the convention, she was given - $100 .for her services by. petitioner Meaux (R. 54). Bergen corroborated Miss Puckett’s version of the: events in all pertinent details (R. 541-579). The ' manager of the Capitol Park Motel testified that peti- tioners, Garris, Bergen, Miss Puckett, as well as those with wham it was alleged Miss Puckett had relations, had resided at the motel on the relevant dates (R. 229-234). 1s Each petitioner denied having any carnal knowl- — edge, of Miss Puckett or having arranged for her- to l4 & . * Before departing on ‘the trip’ Miss “Puckett purchased under the name “Mrs, Bergen” a large quantity of birth con- ’ trol-pills (R. 54-55). The woman who sold her the pills cor- roborated this testimony (R. 222-224). * Although there had been some previous discussion about Miss Puckett walking across the state lines, in order.to avoid prosecution under the Mann Act, she was in fact driven across . the lines (R. aa 4 have sexual relations with any-of his acquainances at the convention (R.,291, 299-300, 304-305, 336-337, 466-467, 478-481, 485). They testified that Bergen had brought Miss Puckett to Nashville because she was his girl friend, not because of any illicit scheme (R. 289-290, 294-295, 469-470). Mr. Regan testified for the defense that he had not had sexual relations . with Miss Puckett (R. 364, 366). °, ARGUMENT. 1. In the course of his closing argument, govern- ment counsel made the following remarks—the itali- cized portion of which petitioners complained of in the court below: May i it please the Court, Mr. Much, Gentle-. -men of the Jury, it is my duty now as your public servant to close the argument ‘for the: United States of America, - I welcome this duty because I enjoy | pry job, working for you people. »[R. 790-791. ] * ’ + * That’s all I have got to say. You: have heard these people testify and you have seen the cross- - examination, and you determine who you want to | believe. It’s not up to me and it’s not what I . say. I am just your public servant and it is not up to the F.B.I. to determine it. It’s up to you, and whether or not you enforce the law depends upon your verdict in this case. You could turn these men loose and if you do I guarantee you it. will continue, their activities like this and what — others we have heard about, but I assure you, if your verdict is guilty, and I say that the evidence 5 ‘is sufficient to uphold this verdict, you might be surprised at the good it will do right here in this community. It will be heard in- this courtroom - . by people that it will have an impact upon, and it will be in newspapers, and there will be people. who read about it and if we can do some good in this realm, and especially in the teen-age realm, we have done something to be-proud of... That’s all I’m asking you to do, to uphold the . law as your conscience dictates. [R. 799-800.] ‘ These remarks—to which no objection was made— followed an ‘extensive summary of the government’s evidence and were made in an effort to counter de- fense counsel’s attack on the credibility of the govern- ment’s chief witnesses and his attempt to impugn the, motives 6f the government in calling the witnesses, and its honesty in dealing with the witnesses and the jury. In these circumstances, the-losing argument of the government was within permissible bounds. 2. At the opening of the trial, petitioner’s retained_ - counsel, Mr, Much, requested the court to permit his eo-counsel, Mr. Scott, to practice before the court pro hac vice. The court, after being informed that Mr. Scott had resigned from practice before the district . court several years earlier—apparently under a cloud —and after consulting with the judge before whom the resignation occurred, denied counsel’s request (R. 4-7). In the circumstances, there was no abuse of the trial judge’s discretion in not admitting Mr. Scott to participate. . The record does not support petitioners’ attack on the adequacy of defense counsel. Mr. Much interposed numerous objections which were sustained (see, ¢.g., te er + OER = en 6 7 R. 183, 144, 167, 176, 181, 204, 380-386), thereby evi- . dencing an adequate understanding of the rules of evi- dence. He cross-examined the government’s witnesses. exhaustively (R. 57-205, 215-218, 584-688). In an ° . effort to rebut the government’s case, defense counsel placed petitioners, as well as other witnesses, on the stand. In his closing argument to the jury, counsel ‘sought to cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the government’s evidence. That other counsel, on combing the record, finds basis for some objections to _ testimony,’ or might have employed a different strat- egy in defending petitioners, is not determinative. See Johnson v. Vertes States, 362 F.2d 43, 47 (C.A,. 8): ” r s Petitioner’s assertion that counsel was remiss in not enter- ing an objection to several specified matters is without merit. The admission of evidence, relating to the attempted rape of ' Miss Puckett and her commission of oral sodomy was proper, since petitioner had been charged with transporting the victim for prostitution “and other immoral purposes.” The refer- ence to petitioners’ taking pills was a neutral one. Any ad- verse implication was dispelled through testimony that the pills were either vitamins or appetite appeasers (R. 3038, 399- 401). Although testimony concerning a gun was not ob- _jected to, direct examihation of Booth elicited the testimony * that the gun was a toy pistol left in the car by Booth’s essa (R. 300-801). > @ a . © me. q CONCLUSION The petition ‘for a writ of certiorari should be . denied. Respectfully submitted. ERWIN N. GRISWOLD, Solicitor General. FRED M. VINSON, JR., Assistant Attorney. General. Oo - BEATRICE ROSENBERG, .J. THOMAS CARROLL, JR., Attorneys. - MARCH 1968. TY VU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1966 294666 672 i --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1296%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.