United States v. Hedman

630 F.2d 1184 (7th Cir. 1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A nineteen-count indictment charged Ds with various violations of federal statutes arising from the acceptance of monies allegedly extorted by them in their capacities as Building Inspection Supervisors. The evidence at trial showed that Ds commenced their employment with the City of Chicago during the 1950s as inspectors for the Department of Buildings. In 1969 and 1970, they were promoted to the positions of Supervisor. In those positions, the defendants were responsible for supervising the inspection, by six district inspectors, of all new construction and remodeling in the geographical areas of the City of Chicago to which they had been assigned. At various stages of construction, a building inspector from the City of Chicago inspects the project to insure compliance with the building code. Upon completion of the construction, the inspector validates the permit. Five of the counts alleged the receipt of extortionate payments by Ds from the Danley Lumber Company. Danley has constructed a substantial number of garages in Chicago that violated the Building Code, usually because the garages were too large or too close to the lot line. Danley would either fail to obtain a building permit or obtain one through the submission of a false application. For these jobs, Danley would make illegal payoffs to Ds. Bentley Weitzman, the President of Danley, would pay $25 to the building inspector for the district in which the non-conforming garage was being erected. From the mid-1960s until 1976, the task of making payoffs on construction that violated the Chicago Building Code was handled by Bentley Weitzman's father, Harry Weitzman. From 1968 until 1976, Harry Weitzman kept a personal diary of the payoffs. At the top of each page of the notebook, Weitzman wrote the first name of a supervisor, e. g., 'Mike,' 'Tom,' 'Hank,' and 'John.' Also listed on these pages were the addresses of the non-conforming job sites, as well as the amounts, the dates, and the places of the payments made to each supervisor for those jobs. The diary detailed payments that were made to all four defendants individually, as well as payments that were made to one supervisor for delivery to another. During trial, P offered into evidence Harry's diary. Harry testified that he recorded the payments in detail in the diary and kept it in his desk at work and did not share it with anyone else. Ds objected as the diary was not used by the company nor required to be kept by the company. The trial court admitted the diary as a business record under Rule 803(6). Ds were convicted and appealed.