United States v. Riccardi

174 F.2d 883 (3d Cir. 1949)

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

The chattels involved are numerous items of bric-a-brac, linens, silverware, and other household articles of quality and distinction. They were the property of Doris Farid es Sultaneh and were kept in her home in New Jersey from which the D is alleged to have transported them to Arizona in a truck and station wagon. D was indicted for transporting in interstate commerce certain chattels of the value of $5,000 or more. At trial, one of the key issues was to prove what chattels D obtained and transported, and their value. P relied on the testimony of Doris Farid to prove the item transported and upon Leo Berlow to prove their value. Farid testified that as the chattels were being moved from the house, she made longhand notes and that later she copied these notes on her typewriter. Only one of the original notes was produced and became part of the evidence of the case. P sought to have Farid testify with respect to the chattels by using the typewritten notes for the purpose of refreshing her recollection. P submitted to Farid lists of chattels taken out of a copy of the indictment, but from which had been deleted such information as dates and values. Farid then testified that her recollection was refreshed and that she presently recognized and could identify each item. Farid then read the lists aloud and testified that she knew that the items were loaded on the truck or station wagon. The lists were not offered into evidence. Berlow, an expert, testified that he had visited the home on numerous occasions in his professional capacity as dealer in antiques and had examined the household for the purpose of buying items from Farid or selling them for her on commission. He was shown the same lists which Farid had used to refresh her recollection. Berlow than testified he could recall the items individually; that he could not only describe the items but in many instances, could state where in the house he had seen them; and that he could give an opinion as to their value. Berlow testified. D had objected to the use of the lists because they were not make by the witnesses at or shortly after the time of the transaction while the facts were fresh in memory. The testimony was allowed. D was convicted and appealed. P urges that where the witness has an independent recollection, anything may be used to stimulate and vitalize that recollection with regard to source or origin.