Lee Marshall Harris v. United States. No. A-145, 404 U.S. 1232 (1971)

404 U.S.
1232
92 S.Ct. 10
30 L.Ed.2d 25
Lee Marshall HARRIS, Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES.
No. A145.
Aug. 31, 1971.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice.
This is an application for bail pending appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have previously
denied similar applications, and their action is entitled to great deference.
Reynolds v. United States, 80 S.Ct. 30, 4 L.Ed.2d 46 (1959). Nevertheless,
'where the reasons for the action below clearly appear, a Circuit Justice has a
non-delegable responsibility to make an independent determination of the
merits of the application.' Id., 80 S.Ct., at 32, 4 L.Ed.2d, at 48. Fed.Rule
Crim.Proc. 46(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 3146, 3148. Accord, Sellers v. United States,
89 S.Ct. 36, 21 L.Ed.2d 64 (1968). While there is no automatic right to bail
after convictions, Bowman v. United States, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 171
(1964), 'The command of the Eighth Amendment that 'Excessive bail shall not
be required * * *' at the very least obligates judges passing upon the right to
bail to deny such relief only for the strongest of reasons.' Sellers, supra, 89
S.Ct., at 38, 21 L.Ed.2d, at 66. The Bail Reform Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C.
3146, 3148, further limits the discretion of a court or judge to deny bail, as it
provides that a person shall be entitled to bail pending appeal, if that appeal is
not frivolous or taken for delay, or 'unless the court or judge has reason to
believe that no one or more conditions of release will reasonably assure that the
person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community.'
3148.
Applying these principles, my examination of the papers submitted by applicant

and by the Solicitor General in opposition persuade me that the Government
has not met its burden of showing that bail should be denied.
The primary ground upon which the Solicitor General opposes bail is that '(t)
here are no substantial questions raised' by the appeal. It is true that the
questions raised relate primarily to evidentiary matters. It is settled, however,
that these are within the purview of review of an application of this kind, and
that they may raise nonfrivolousindeed, even 'substantial'questions. See,
e.g., Wolcher v. United States, 76 S.Ct. 254, 100 L.Ed. 1521 (1955).
Applicant principally argues that there was no evidence in the record from
which an inference is permissible that he knew that a truck guided by him and a
codefendant, in a separate vehicle, from one location in Los Angeles to another
location in that city contained unlawfully imported narcotics. It is beyond
question, of course, that a conviction based on a record lacking any relevant
evidence as to a crucial element of the offense charged would violate due
process. See Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 44, 87 S.Ct. 242, 245, 17
L.Ed.2d 149 (1966). See also Johnson v. Florida, 391 U.S. 596, 88 S.Ct. 1713,
20 L.Ed.2d 838 (1968); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4
L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). The quantum and nature of proof constitutionally required
to support an inference of knowledge in narcotics offenses is not always an easy
question. Cf. Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d
610 (1970); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57
(1969). Applicant cites a case from the Ninth Circuit as a factually similar
example in which a conviction for a narcotics offense was reversed for lack of
proof of knowledge that another possessed the contraband. While I express no
opinion on the merits of the analogy, Circuit Justices have granted bail pending
appeal based in part on similar claims of failure of proof. See, e.g., Brussel v.
United States, 396 U.S. 1229, 90 S.Ct. 2, 24 L.Ed.2d 53 (1969).
Applicant also challenges the hearsay testimony of an informer as to a Tijuana

phone number given to him by a reputed Mexican narcotics trafficker. Other
evidence demonstrated that applicant's codefendant called this number several
times prior to the importation of the contraband in July 1969. The implication,
presumably, is that the prior calls were made to arrange the shipment. The
hearsay declaration, however, was made over a year after the codefendant's
phone calls occurred, and the common scheme sought to be proven had been
terminated. Under these circumstances, the admissibility of this declaration as a
hearsay exception is not free from doubt. Cf. Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S.
211, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946).
Assuming this testimony is otherwise admissible, applicant argues it is not the

'best evidence' of the registration of the phone number. While it is true that
Mexican phone company records were beyond the subpoena power of the
court, and that courts have held that secondary evidence may be used without
further ado in such a case, see, e.g., Hartzell v. United States, 72 F.2d 569 (CA8
1934), applicant's argument is nevertheless not without merit:
7
'(T)he policy of the original document requirement, and probably the weight of
reason, supports the view of those courts equally numerous who demand * * *
that before secondary evidence is used, the proponent must show either that he
has made reasonable efforts without avail to secure the original from its
possessor, or circumstances which persuade the court that such efforts would
have been fruitless.' C. McCormick, Evidence 202, p. 415 (1954), and cases
cited. It is noteworthy in this regard that the District Court rejected evidence
offered by applicant tending to show that the phone number in question was not
registered to the purported narcotics trafficker before December 1970.
I cannot say that these contentions are all frivolous. The District Judge stated in
his opinion denying bail that 'No objections were interposed to the telephone
calls to Tiajuana (sic) made by co-defendant.' He made no mention, however, of
applicant's challenge to the hearsay declaration of the Mexican narcotics
traffiker. If this challenge should prevail, 'it might well tip the scales in
defendant's favor, as it goes to the heart of the case.' Wolcher, supra, 76 S.Ct.,
at 255, 100 L.Ed., at 1523.*
Where an appeal is not frivolous or taken for delay, bail 'is to be denied only in
cases in which, from substantial evidence, it seems clear that the right to bail
may be abused or the community may be threatened by the applicant's release.'
Leigh v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 994, 996, 8 L.Ed.2d 269, 271 (1962); accord,
Rehman v. California, 85 S.Ct. 8, 13 L.Ed.2d 17 (1964). According to the
Solicitor General, the District Judge denied bail in part because 'there was
reason to believe that defendant, who had no employment, would not respond
to required future appearances and would be a danger to the community.'
Applicant's Bail Reform Act form indicates, however, that he is a selfemployed auto mechanic making $150 per week, that he has lived in Los
Angeles for the past eight years, that he has several relatives, including his
mother and a sister, living there, and that he has never failed to make a required
court appearance while on bail. The moving papers further indicate that
applicant was at liberty after sentencing, pursuant to a stay of execution granted
by the Court of Appeals, and that he voluntarily submitted to the authorities
upon the expiration of the stay. There is not such 'substantial evidence' in this
record to justify denying bail on the ground that applicant is a flight risk.
10
Furthermore, a far stronger showing of danger to the community must be made

than is apparent from this record to justify a denial of bail on that ground. See,
e.g., United States v. Erwing, 280 F.Supp. 814 (N.D.Cal.1968). Accordingly,

bail should be granted pending disposition of the appeal in this case, pursuant
to the standards set forth in the Bail Reform Act. It is so ordered.
11
Application granted.
Applicant also renewed at trial, and raises here, a question of substantial nature
which was before this Court last Term. The District Court in this case entered a
pre-trial order suppressing the contraband found in the truck. However, the
Ninth Circuit reversed, on an interlocutory appeal by the Government. It felt
that the actions of the customs agents constituted an 'extended border search,'
justified by the fact that the truck had been under continuous surveillance from
the time it crossed the Mexican border. I granted a stay of the Court of
Appeals's interlocutory judgment pending disposition of the petition for
certiorari; partly because of questions concerning the propriety of the
interlocutory procedure, but also because of the differing approaches used by
the Ninth and the Fifth Circuits to justify extended border searches Harris v.
United States, 400 U.S. 1211, 91 S.Ct. 4, 27 L.Ed.2d 30 (1970). The full Court,
however, denied certiorari. Harris v. United States, 400 U.S. 1000, 91 S.Ct.
456, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971). This action does not necessarily indicate a view as
to the merits of either of the questions above. Possibly the interlocutory posture
of the case was the determining facor. Nevertheless, applicant's Fourth
Amendment claims have not been considered in the decision to grant this
application. Cf. Drifka v. Brainard, 89 S.Ct. 434, 21 L.Ed.2d 427 (1968).

Lee Marshall Harris v. United States. No. A-145, 404 U.S. 1232 (1971)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Marshall Harris v. United States. No. A-145, 404 U.S. 1232 (1971)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Marshall Harris v. United States. No. A-145, 404 U.S. 1232 (1971)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

404 U.S.

Lee Marshall HARRIS, Appellant,

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice.

Applying these principles, my examination of the papers submitted by applicant

Applicant also challenges the hearsay testimony of an informer as to a Tijuana

Assuming this testimony is otherwise admissible, applicant argues it is not the

Furthermore, a far stronger showing of danger to the community must be made

e.g., United States v. Erwing, 280 F.Supp. 814 (N.D.Cal.1968). Accordingly,

You might also like