# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — ALLSTATE MORTGAGE CORP. V. UNITED STATES (No. 74-1020) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_0677%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1974 ## Text No %4-1020 r » . = 3n the Supreme Court of the United States OcToBER Term, 1974 ALLSTATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, CHARLES KARP, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Parrick A. Turrs, . 134 N. LaSalle Street, - Chicago, Illinois 60602, Attorney for Petitioners. The Scheffer Press, Inc—(312) 263-6850 io a_i REENTRNENTRREE TE —) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...... REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ................ RII 5 4 a < 3 : 2 4 ~ 7 i pa JURISDICTION The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Appendix A, infra) was entered on December 10, 1974. A timely motion for a petition for rehearing en bane was denied on January 13, 1975 (Ap- pendix 3, infra). This petition is filed within 30 days of the final order of the United States Court of Appeals. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). HISTORY OF THE CASE Charles Karp and Allstate Mortgage Co. were indicted and convicted in 11 counts for devising a scheme to defraud wherein the mails were an integral part of the scheme in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. See. 1341. Further, the defendants were convicted of violations of Title 18 U.S.C. See. 1010 for causing false s*xtements to be sub- mitted to The Federal Housing Authority (FHA). After the convictions in a bench trial the Court sen- tenced Charles Karp to one year imprisonment on the mail fraud counts (to run concurrently) and one year on the false statement counts (tq run concurrently) but the two one-year sentences were ordered to run con- secutively. The Corporation was fined $18,000. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Were the petitioners denied their rights to attendance of witnesses and to due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution when the judge would not grant use im- munity to a material defense witness who in good faith invoked his privilege against self-incrimination? 2. Were the petitioners denied their rights to con- front witnesses against them as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the trial Court took into consideration a post scheme state- ment of a non-testifying co-defendant in deprecating a valid defense? CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall en- ; joy the right . . . to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . .” Amendment VI to the United States Constitution. ms “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or ° property, without due process of law. . .” Amendment V to the United States Constitution. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT L THE PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THEIR RIGHT TO COMPEL ATTEN- DANCE OF WITNESSES WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT GRANT USE IMMUNITY TO A MATERIAL DEFENSE WITNESS WHO HAD ASSERTED HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. In the last eight counts of the indictment Charles Karp and/or Allstate Mortgage Co., a mortgage broker- age firm, not a mortgagee, were charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 1010 for causing false statements to be sub- mitted to the FHA to induce them to issue mortgage insurance. It was alleged that on the FHA Form 2900, a form used by the FHA to pass on mortgage insurance applications, a figure less than the true broker’s fee was listed. These counts charged the petitioners with causing these lesser amounts to be submitted. An outline of the procedures involved in obtaining an FHA insured mortgage will be set out here for a complete understanding of the issues. When a home owner applies for an FHA insured mort- gage he fills out a form known as a 2800 Form. This document contains information about the physical struc- ture of the premises such as number of rooms, type of heat, type of construction and other factors which would help assess a value on the property. An FHA inspector then inspects the property and based on all these factors the FHA gives a conditional commitment—that is, the maximum mortgage amount it will insure. ray OA The owner through the mortgagee then submits a credit statement to the FHA which is referred to as Form 2900. On this form the applicant lists his income, his liabilities, his dependents and other information pertinent to his ability to repay the insured mortgage. In addition there is space on Form 2900 for the amount of money needed at the closing of the transaction. This includes payment of the principal indebtedness, pay- ments to lien holders and closing costs. Amongst the closing costs is space for any broker’s fee to be entered. In the instant case it was established that the figure for the broker’s fee on Form 2900 and the amount re- ceived by the petitioner at the closing did not match and that the petitioner received more than listed on Form 2900. However, the Government’s own witness testified that the mortgagee—not tlie hroker—completed the Form 2900 and did not show them to the petitioner for his approval nor did the petitioner in any way assist in the completion of the document. In an attempt to show that the mortgage hroker does not fill out the Form 2900 and that it was an industry practice in Chicago for mortgagees to use estimates in- stead of actual figures for the closing cost requirements on the form, the petitioner called as a witness Wyatt Ross, the former manager of Mortgage Associates, a mortgage banking firm in Chicago. Mr. Ross asserted his privilege against self-incrimina- tion when asked about the industry practice in completing Form 2900. A petition was presented to the Court in an effort to grant Mr. Ross use immunity along with an offer of what Mr. Ross would say if granted use immunity. ALA AAIEL CARBIDE AA ce Nic Gtep Padd a — oC Mr. Ross, the petitioner offered to prove, would testify that it was the practice of Mortgage Associates and the mortgage banking industry in Chicago to first com- pute all of the debts and enter them in the Form 2900 and then enter the difference between all monies needed to close the transaction and the conditional commitment from the FHA as the broker’s fee. It was, of course, clear that the monies to be dispersed at the closing could not exceed the conditional commitment. Mr. Ross did testify, as did others, that they knew Allstate Mort- gage Company’s fee was $1,000 in all cases. An example of the industry practice is as follows: If the conditional commitment by the FHA was $20,000 and there was an outstanding balance of $18,000 on the existing indebtedness and $1,500 in closing costs, the mortgage company would reflect Allstate’s broker’s fee as $500 on the 2900 because that was the only figure they could insert in the form without exceeding the $20,000 conditional commitment. At the time of the closing, how- ever, which might have been 6 to 8 months later, the exist- ing indebtedness would be reduced and Allstate would receive its full $1,000 fee or as much of it as was available at the time of closing. The offer of proof also showed that Mr. Ross would have testified, if granted immunity, that these manipula- tions with numbers were done by the mortgage com- panies without the knowledge or complicity . the mort- gage broker. At the trial the Government objected to the grant of immunity. The trial judge ruled that he was inclined to receive evidence of other transactions, which would show Charles Karp’s knowledge or good faith. The Court found the proffered testimony to be material and that \ cs | — a Mr. Ross was asserting his privilege in good faith but in the final analysis held that he did not have the author- ity to grant a defendant’s petition for immunity, The Court further ruled that he was not reaching the ques- tion of his discretion in the matter but was denying the petition solely on the ground that he did not have power to entertain it. The Government in opposing th: petition for immunity cited to the Court Earl v. United States, 361 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1966), a case which dealt with the prior statute on immunity, 18 U.S.C. 1406. The immunity provided for and which was considered in the Earl case was transac- tional immunity; that is to say, that a witness could not be prosecuted about any transaction which was men- tioned in his testimony. Congress had granted the power to grant such immunity only to the prosecution, and Earl v. United States, supra, recognized that by giving transactional immunity over the Government’s objectiun, the Court was denying the prosecution the ability to prosecute and was interfering with decisions best left to the prosecution. At the time of the petition in this ease, however, Title 18 had been amended to allow for use immunity under Title 18 U.S.C. 6003. Although that provision still only deals with governmental petitions for immunity, the grant of immunity does not preclude the government from prosecuting the witness, but only bars them from using the testimony so compelled or any leads therefrom against the witness. This Court in Kastigar v. United Staies, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) upheld the constitutionality of the use immunity statute and Jus- tice Blackmun writing for the majority in the case held that granting use immunity was no different than if the witness had not testified at all, but instead stood on his Fifth Amendment privilege. a ee If the trial Court granted immunity to this essential defense witness in the instant case it would not have prevented the Government from using the testimony or leads therefrom against him. And as mentioned in Kastigar, the situation would have been no different than if the witness had not testified at all. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion guarantees the compulsory attendance of witnesses on behalf of the defendant and cases have held that when the Government interferes with the defendant’s ability to freely call witnesses on his own behalf, due process of law and the rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment are denied. In Bray v. Peyton, 429 F.2d 5v0 (4th Cir. 1970) the jailing of a witness against whom the charges were dropped earlier was held to have a chilling effect on his ability to testify and thereby a violation of the Sixth Amendment. In United States vy. Mendez-Rodrigue:, 450 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1971) the prosecution returned a material defense witness to Mexico and this was held to be a bla- tant denial of access to witnesses and therefore a violation of due process. gue The proposition that the prosecutor cannot suppress evidence favorable to the defendant which was enun- ciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) would be an anomaly if that same holding did not apply to the Government’s refusal to acquiesce in the grant of use immunity to a material defense witness. For all prac- tical purposes what difference is there between the situa- tion where the Government suppresses evidence favor- able to the defendant or where the Government refuses to go along with the grant of use immunity for a material defense witness? The Government contended at trial that it is an interference with a basie prosecutorial decision whether someone should receive immunity or not. We fan ae submit that the question now is not giving the witness total immunity versus prosecution but only giving him use immunity and still a'lowing the prosecutors, if they so see fit and if they have the evidence, to prosecute the witness with evidence ir.dependent of his testimony. The trial Court poirted out the anomaly of this situa- tion by stating that if he had ruled that Ross had to testify, notwithstand'ng his assertion of the privilege, he would in effect be granting Ross use immunity. Such testimony having been compelled by a Court could not be considered the voluntary statement of a witness and that statement or any leads therefrom could not be used against the witness. In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) this Court recognized the psychological compulsion aspect in giving statements and ruled that statements given under compulsion of giving a statement or losing one’s job would not be admissible in Court. So, too, a statement psychologically compelled in Court by a judge would lead to the same conclusion. All the cases cited by the Government and by the 7th Circuit in affirming this conviction dealt with the transac- tional immunity Statute, 18 U.S.C. 6003. There has been no case, to your petitioner’s knowledge which has decided the issue herein. Recently the issue was raised in United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253 (4th Cir. 1974). The Court there declined to pass on the matter pointing out however that it might have considered it if the petition for immunity had been presented to the District Court (as it was here), and there had been an offer of proof to provide a basis for an intelligent disposition of the petition (such an offer was made in the instant case). This Court has held that the right to offer relevant testi- mony is a fundamental right to present a defense guar- Si aah hy — IPE MOLINE, PD EE IE ‘ a anteed by the due process clause. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967). By denying the defendant the opportunity to present a material witness in his own behalf, the defendant did not have the right to present a defense. To argue that Congress only granted the Government the authority to petition for immunity misreads the Statute. While 18 U.S.C. 6001 allows the Court to act on the Government’s petition for immunity there is nothing in the act which prohibits the Court from acting on a defen- dant’s petition. Courts have inherent rights in the con- duct of trials before them to see that justice is accom- plished. This Court has in the past found that a citizen has a remedy in money damages for an illegal search and seizure where no such remedy existed by Statute. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). What is needed here is a balancing between the Govern- ment’s right to prosecute and a defendant’s right to present material witnesses on his own behalf. This Court in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) weighed the interest of the Government in protecting confidential informants versus the defendant’s rights to present a material witness on his behalf and having done so, decided for the defendant. As mentioned earlier, the Courts now have the power to grant use immunity which does not preclude the Govern- ment from prosecuting the witness with independent evi- dence. The Court, therefore, is not interfering with the prosecutor’s functions as would have been the case un- der the former Statute. In balancing the right of the Government to prosecute, which is not lost under these ee S ANGE CES 22 Ae EPEC DRE *_ aes, peep circumstances versus the right of a defendant to present a material witness, which has been lost here, the choice seems clear. The Government is not being injured by the granting of use immunity but the defendant may be irreparably harmed by the refusal tg grant the petition. As this is an important issue which materially affects these petitioners and all others similarly situated we respectfully ask this Court to issue the writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Il. THE PETITIONERS WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM WHEN THE COURT TOOK INTO.CONSIDERATION A POST SCHEME STATEMENT OF A NON-TESTI- FYING CO-DEFENDANT IN DISREGARDING A VALID DEFENSE. Karp and Allstate Mortgage Co. were in the business of trying to get persons who had purchased their homes under a contract or articles of agreement to convert that contract into a mortgage. Various salesmen, including Karp, contacted home owners and tried to sell them on the advantages of having a mortgage instead of only a contract. It was alleged that the sales persons did not inform the owners that there would be a $1,000 fee pay- able to Allstate if a mortgage was obtained. The Govern- ment called 12 witnesses who testified that they were contacted by an Allstate salesman, that they decided to try to get a mortgage, signed certain documents but never were told that they would be indebted to All- state for $1,000. Most of the people testified that the agreement with Allstate was blank at the time of the signing. It was established that at the closing, aiter a = mortgage was obtained, $1,000 of the mortgage proceeds were paid to Mr. Karp on behalf of Allstate. This $1,000 was then included in the indebtedness that the owner paid off in monthly installments to the mortgagor. Some people who applied for -a mortgage, received a favorable credit report but refused to go through with the agreement were sued for either the costs of Allstate in applying for the mortgage or the full $1,000. In defense Karp presented 12 witnesses who were home owners and were similarly situated to the prosecution witnesses. They all testified that the Allstate salesman told them about the fee and they were extremely satisfied with the mortgages obtained by Allstate for them. Such a defense is proper. United States v. Shavin, 287 F.2d 647 (7th Cir. 1961) At his arrest a co-defendant, Howard Berg, an Allstate salesman, told the FBI that on many occasions he would not tell a prospective mortgage applicant about the All- state fee if he thought they would refuse to sign the application. (Allstate salesmen would receive $25 for each application they brought in.) Prior to trial Karp and Allstate moved for a severance from Berg because of this post arrest statement but the Court denied the motion, ruling instead that he would handle the problem at the time, if ever, it arose during the trial. The Court agreed, however, that Berg’s state- ment was only attributable to Berg and no one else. During the closing argument, the attorney for Karp and Allstate argued that there was no scheme to defraud and pointed to the satisfied witnesses of the defense to emphasize his position. elie oe “2 — The Court, however, then stated in response to Counsel for Karp: “Mr. Tuite: Of course not, no. But I submit that if there was a scheme, there would have been people of—I shouldn’t say of lack of educational background, or similar people would have been similarly defrauded. I don’t see why if there was a scheme, that a Mr. Wiginton would be defrauded, or there would be a scheme to defraud him and not Mrs. Demetral, or any of the other people that testified. I don’t think I perceived any great intellectual superiority of defense witnesses over Government witnesses; that the reason these people weren’t de- frauded is that they were intellectually sharper and, therefore, they couldn’t be. I think these were just ordinary, middle or even lower-middle class people who were in financial dif- ficulties and were dealt with. Of course, you can defraud one person and not the other. But it doesn’t seem reasonable that they would pick on those 12 that the Government had come in, and not 10 other people who were similarly situated in life, and whose educational background, as far as I could see, did not set them apart. Mrs. Curry was 18 years with the Government, but then again you have Mrs. Ham Ying who seemed to be a very intelligent, educated woman. The Powells— an ordinary couple, I don’t think much ditrcrent than a number of people that the Government called to testify, all at about the same time. These transactions all took place about the same ‘time, in the same areas. And | submit that it at least raises the question of doubt, it raises the question of reasonable doubt if there was a scheme to defraud. The Court: It shows—in a degree, though, Mr. Tuite, it shows the real problems which attend proof of so-called similar transactions. Because the con- ceded similarity—and I assume the Government would Nutng Pe ee eG ELSA IE MEM SONS Tag BO LI co) concede it, that these people are from essentially the same background, and they were all for one reason or another interested in refinancing. But beyond that, the method of selling here, totally apart now from whether there was or wasn’t a scheme—the personal encounter, method of selling, door to door selling, those conversations unfolded in such a way that as Agent Van Loon has testified Mr. Berg said, he didn’t disclose the fee if he was afraid he was going to lose the sale or the customer. And in some instances it seems reasonable to infer that a person in the situa- tion that your witnesses were would demonstrate a particular type of interest in the transaction, might inquire on their own about what the fee was, the conversation might proceed in such a way as to cause the salesman to believe, ‘Here | can disclose it to them.’ And, indeed, you end up with a couple of agree- ments that are footnoted, percentages are used rather than dollar figures, and then you take angiher person who manifests apprehension about the fee, and the salesman concludes in this case, ‘I’m not going to tell him.’ (R. 2516-19) (emphasis added) It is clear therefore that the Court, contrary to his initial ruling that Berg's statement would orly be admis- sible against Berg, took into consideration in deprecating a proper defense, an inadmissible statement of a co-de- fendant. This Co in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 16.0, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, held it to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses to use a hearsay statement of a co-defendant in a joint trial even though limiting instructions are given. Although the instant case involved a bench trial and there is a presumption that the trial Court only will consider com- petent evidence that presumption is not unrebuttable and R a (eee POS EL Pt LP ROE COVELL! LOE I LEC LOTTA I a, ea where the record is clear that the trial Court did con- sider improper evidence, a reversal is warranted. This Court in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, reversed a conviction when it was not clear that the trial Court, also in a bench trial, may not also have considered a co-defendant’s statement as corroboration of the accusation. This Court held that even though the case was tried without a jury where the Court overruled objections concerning the admissi- bility of the statement as against a non-declarant it would not be presumed that the Court disregarded the state- ment in considering the non-declarant’s guilt. In United States v. Turnipseed, 272 F.2d 106 (7th Cir. 1959) the trial Court made certain remarks which appear in the co-defendant’s confession and that Court in revers- ing the conviction held that where there was a number of defendants tried together in a bench trial and the evidence is received as to some, but not as to others, that it was error for the Court to consider evidence admissible only as to one in reaching its findings as to all. While Bruton, supra, dealt with the use of an extra- judicial statement which inculpates the non-declarant de- fendant, there appears to be no logical reason to refuse to apply the rule to this type of case. The use of an ex- trajudicial statement of a co-defendant which statement was not under oath and not subject to cross-examination and which is used in considering the guilt of the defen- dant is a violation of this rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. To allow the use of Berg’s statement to the obvious detriment of the petitioners is a classic violation of the right to confrontation. ; f Eb a am Berg never testified and the petitioners could not call a co-defendant as their own witness. United Siates v. Echeles, 352 F.2d 892 (7th Cir. 1965). While Bruton and its progeny have dealt with the use of a co-defendant’s hearsay statement to incriminate a defendant there is as strong a need for the rule to apply when the statement is used to thwart a valid defense. A clear example of this type of harm can be seen where after an alibi is presented by a defendant, a police officer testifies in rebuttal that another person told him that the defendant was not where he testified he was. While the hearsay statement does not incriminate the defendant, it surely materially affects his defense without the ability to cross-examine. For this reason your petitioners also pray this Honor- able Court to grant the petition for certiorari. CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons your petitioners pray this Honorable Court to grant the writ of certiorari to review the judgment of affirmance of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Respectfully submitted, Patrick A. TuITE 134 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, Illinois 60602 Attorney for Petitioners aT Mah ne ERE a oe APPENDIX A In The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Seventh Cireuit No. 74-1322 Unitep States or AMERICA, Plaintiff-A ppellee, v. ALLSTATE Mortcace Corporation, Cuartes Karp and Howarp Bere, Defendants-A ppellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Tlinois, Eastern Division No. 73 CR 481 Prentice H. MarsHau, Judge Arcuep Octoser 23, 1974— Dectpep DecemBer 10, 1974 Before Swycert, Chief Judge, Castie, Sentor Circuit Judge, and Kitxennxy, Senior Circuit Judge.* Per Curntam. Appellants were indicted and convicted, in a court trial, on eleven mail fraud counts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1541. Additionally, appellants’ Allstate and Karp were indicted and convicted on two and Karp alone on three false statement counts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §& 1010. *Honorable John F. Kilkenny of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is sitting by desig- nation. eee | nn. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE Without going into the fetid details of appellants’ fraudulent schemes and false statements, it is sufficient to say that the record supports their convictions on each of the counts on which they were convicted. This is particularly true when we invoke the rule in Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), and view the evidence and all permissible inferences in the light most favorable to the government. The fact that the court ac- quitted most of the co-defendant salesmen fortifies, rather than undermines, the validity of the convictions. This action clearly demonstrates the alertness of the covrt on the issue of intent. Obviously, the district court, as trier of fact, had a doubt on whether the salesmen, as distinguished from appellants, had an intent to partici- pate in the fraudulent schemes. The record before us bears no resemblance to United States v. Maybury, 274 F.2d 899 (CA2 1960), upon which appellants rely. Nor did the court’s offhand reference in its findings to co- appellant Berg’s post-scheme statement in any way af- fect its ultimate findings of guilt against Allstate and Karp. It is clear that the court considered Berg’s post- scheme statement only with reference to Berg, even though in many respects his actions characterized an important aspect of the over-all scheme to defraud. Ab- sent a showing of substantive prejudice, the court, in a hench trial, is deemed to have considered only admissi- ble and relevant material. United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 (CA7 1974). Even if, as contended by Allstate and Karp, the evidence was erroneously ad- _ mitted as to them, the action should be considered harm- less under Rule 52 (a), FRCrimP. There remains, aside from such evidence, an abundance of relevant and com- petent evidence to establish their guilt beyond a reason- able doubt. The court's findings are sufficient to sustain the judg- ments of convictions as to all appellants and are fully supported by the evidence. DESEO T I Pi BRAN PRE ae 9G i ir peel TYREE eae WEED Oa BR, OE rng ee eee foe ee ee rs SO TOR a IMMUNITY Without citing authority in support of their views, ap- pellants Karp and Allstate contend that the district court committed error in denying Alistate’s petition ask- ing that defense witness Ross be granted use immunity from self-incrimination under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003. Ross, an employee of an independent mortage company, asserted his Fifth Amendment privi- lege during the course of his direct examination and re- fused to answer questions with reference to the use of certain FITA forms. In the petition for immunity, appellants offered to prove that Ross would testify that it was the policy and practice of his company and, so far as he knew, the practice of the mortgage banking industry to follow the practice commonly followed by appellants in filling out the particular forms. The district court held that it had no power under the statutes to grant the petition. We agree. In our view, there is no significant difference between the statute before the court in Earl v. United States, 361 F.2d 531 (DC Cir. 1966), cert. denied 388 U.S. 921 (1967), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003. Appellants’ argument that the immunity involved in Karl was trans- actional and that the immunity before us is use, is a distinction without a difference. Under neither statute is anyone other than the United States Attorney, with the approval of superior officials, authorized to request an order granting immunity to a witness. While the Con- gress may have the power to grant appellants a right comparable to the right granted to the government, the judicial creation of such a right is beyond the power of the courts. Karl, supra, at 534. The rule in Farl has been uniformly followed subse- quent to the enactment of §{ 6002 and 6003. Cerda v. United States, 488 F.2d 720, 723 (CA9 1973); United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 190 (CA3 1973); United States v. Jenkins, 470 F.2d 1061, 1063-1064 (CA9 1972), Bey 4 oe cert. denied 411 U.S. 920 (1973). As recently as August 6, 1974, this circuit in United States v. Ramsey, .... F.2d ...» No. 73-1580 (CA7 1974), in speaking on the subject, said: “[T]here is no merit to the argument that a defen- dant has a constitutional right to have immunity con- ferred upon a defense witness who exercises his privilege against self-incrimination.” Here, as in Ramsey, the prose- cution did not secure any of its evidence by means of an immunity grant. Our recent decision in United States v. Watkins, .... F.2d ...., No. 74-1287 (CA7 Nov., 1974), is consistent with these conclusions. OTHER CONTENTIONS (1) Appellants Allstate and Karp complain of the receipt in evidence of other false statements to the FHA similar to those charged in the indictment. This circuit recognizes the rule that evidence of prior similar offenses is admissible if it bears a strong resemblance to the pat- tern of the offenses charged. This evidence is higly rele- vant on the issue of knowledge and intent, as tending to show a consistent pattern of conduct. United States v. Marine, 413 F.2d 214, 216 (CAT 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1001 (1970). See also United States v. Jones, 438 F.2d 461, 465-66 (CA7 1971), and United States v. Turner, 423 F.2d 481, 484 (CA7 1970), cert. denied 398 U.S. 967. Appellants’ reliance on United States v. Baum, 482 F.2d 1325 (CA2 1973), and Mills v. United States, 367 F.2d 366 (CA10 1966), is completely misplaced. Baum recognizes the rule just stated, but reversed the convic- tion on account of the government’s failure to provide, in pre-trial proceedings, the name of the witness to the alleged prior crime. Reversal was further warranted by the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a con- tinuance to prepare cross-examination of the witness presenting the evidence of the prior offense. In substan- tial part, Bawm stands for the proposition that the prose- cution must disclose its witnesses to the defense prior to trial. Mills, too, recognizes that evidence of other of- fenses is admissible to show motive, intent, knowledge and course of conduct. The court reversed on the ground ninco that only one of a large number of “no fund” checks issued by defendant and received in evidence had anything whatsoever to do with the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, the crime charged in the indictment. Other authorities cited by appellants have received our attention, but they are no more in point. (2) Appellant Berg maintains that the district court committed error in denying his pre-trial motion for a severance. Since the ultimate decision rests w:thin the sound discretion of the trial judge, Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 95 (1954), the appellant carries a heavy burden. Severance will be granted only for the most cogent reasons. The moving party must show that he will be unable to obtain a fair trial without severance, not merely that a separate trial will offer a better chance for acquittal. United States v. Blue, 440 F.2d 300, 302 (CA7 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 836. Another statement of the rule is that judicial economy, efficiency, speed and the public interest in avoiding multiple trials, dictates that defendants jointly indicted should be tried together, except for the most compelling reasons. Parker vy. United States, 404 F.2d 1198, 1196 (C.A9 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 1004 (1969); United States v. Kahn, 381 F.2d 824, 839 (CAT 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 1015. Our study of appellants’ motion and of the evidence introduced during the course of the trial, convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion, nor did anything oceur during the course of the trial which would require the court sua sponte to order a severance at the close of the government’s case. (3) Appellants’ other contentions are peripheral to those just discussed. We find them meritless. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. « Ga APPENDIX B UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Llinois 60604 January 13, 1975 Before Hon. Luter M. Swycert, Chief Judge Hon. Latoam Caste, Sr. Circuit Judge Hon. Jour F. Kitkenny, Sr. Circuit Judge Unitrep States or AMERICA hy gion) Spor ‘ Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, | United States Dis- No. 74-1322 trict Court for the Vs. \ Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Div- ALLSTATE MortGace CorporaTIon, sion. et al., (73 CR 481) Defendants-Appellants. } On consideration of the petition for rehearing filed in the above-entitled cause, It Is Ordered that the petition for rehearing in the aboved-entitled appeal be, and the same is hereby, Dentep. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_0677%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.