Edward Earle Beck v. United States, 375 U.S. 972 (1964)

375 U.S.
972
84 S.Ct. 480
11 L.Ed.2d 419
Edward Earle BECK, petitioner,

v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 479.
Supreme Court of the United States

January 6, 1964
Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1964.
See 376 U.S. 929, 84 S.Ct. 656.

William F. Walsh, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice
Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper, for the United States.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
Denied.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
Like United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U.S. 233, 234, 78 S.Ct. 245, 2
L.Ed.2d 234, 'This case presents an unusual question, involving the integrity of
a criminal trial in the federal courts.'
Petitioner was convicted by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C. 176asmuggling

marihuana into the United States. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 5 Cir., 317
F.2d 865. A principal witness for the Government was a woman, Janet
Watkins, arrested with petitioner, the marihuana having been discovered in her
hair. Before petitioner's trial, she pleaded guilty to transporting marihuana
without having paid a transfer tax, and the smuggling charge against her was
then dismissed. At the trial, she testified on cross-examination that her guilty
plea was still in effect, that no action, personally or through an attorney, had
been taken to withdraw it, and that she did not then intend to withdraw it. The
judge instructed the jury that he had accepted the plea only after she admitted
knowing that the marihuana was in her hair.
5
Following affirmance in the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed two petitions for
rehearing and a motion to supplement the record, pointing out that the judge
who presided at his trial had subsequently granted the woman's unopposed
motion to withdraw the guilty plea and that, on the Government's motion, the
indictment against her was dismissed. In support of his request that the case be
remanded to the Federal District Court for an inquiry into the propriety of what
had transpired, petitioner presented this newly discovered letter from one of the
woman's attorneys to the other:
'Since Janet pled guilty she has had a conference with Hugh Johnson, Probation
Officer, who believes that she was a victim of circumstances the same as you
and I believe. After conferring with the Probation Officer he was able to have a
conference with Judge Connally 1 concerning the matter, who, in turn, had a
conference with Janet personally. It is my understanding, although not
confirmed, that Judge Connally is of the same opinion as we are. After
conferring with Judge Connally we were able to talk to Bill Jackson of the
Federal District Attorney's office, who is also convinced that Janet is a victim
of circumstances and not guilty.
'The present course of action is as follows: Janet will be a witness for the
Government against Mr. Beck. After she testifies against him Janet will
withdraw her plea of guilty to not guilty, and the cases will be tried before the
court if tried at all. Although the Government has not promised nything, they
have as much as indicated her cases will be dismissed. * * *'
Had all these facts been known and disclosed at the time of the trial they might
have had an effect on the outcome. For the case was submitted to the jury on
two separate theoriesthe petitioner alone smuggled the marihuana into the
United States and that he aided and abetted Janet Watkins in doing so. The jury
returned a general verdict; and on appeal the Court of Appeals rejected the
argument that the case had been improperly submitted on the aider and abetter
theory. 317 F.2d, at 870-871.
The Government argues that petitioner should have proceeded by filing a
motion for a new trial. See Rule 33, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 'It is more
appropriate, whenever possible, to correct errors reachable by the appeal rather
than remit the parties to a new collateral proceeding.' Bartone v. United States,
375 U.S. 52, 54, 84 S.Ct. 21, 11 L.Ed.2d 11.
10
I would grant certiorari, reverse the judgment below, and remand the case for a
new trial. Cf. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215.
Judge Connally presided at petitioner Beck's trial in this case.

Edward Earle Beck v. United States, 375 U.S. 972 (1964)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edward Earle Beck v. United States, 375 U.S. 972 (1964)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Edward Earle Beck v. United States, 375 U.S. 972 (1964)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

375 U.S.

Edward Earle BECK, petitioner,

Supreme Court of the United States

See 376 U.S. 929, 84 S.Ct. 656.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C. 176asmuggling

The Government argues that petitioner should have proceeded by filing a

Judge Connally presided at petitioner Beck's trial in this case.

You might also like