United States v. Williams

Facts

D was indicted for cashing government checks bearing forged endorsements. The person charged must know that the endorsement is a forgery and that the check be uttered and published as true 'willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully with intent to defraud the United States . . ..' The evidence showed that the endorsements on four checks were forgeries and there was strong evidence that D had cashed all four of them at a Detroit bar referred to in the indictment. The remaining issue was whether P had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that D 'intentionally cashed these checks knowing that they had forged endorsements.' Ball was called as a witness. Ball operated a junk yard next door to the bar where the four forged checks were cashed and he cashed checks there regularly. D rented part of Ball's lot and ran a similar business there. Ball testified that when the first of the forged checks was returned by the bank the proprietor of the bar presented it to him, assuming that he had cashed it. Ball denied cashing the check he told the proprietor to check it out further. Ball later learned from the bar owner that it was D who had cashed the check. Ball then related his conversations with D about the check. After stating that D admitted that he had cashed the check and was willing to make it good, Ball was asked if D had stated where he had gotten the check. The witness answered, 'Not to my knowledge, I don't remember him telling me where he got it.' Ball was asked whether he remember a statement he had given to a Secret Service agent in July 1975. He stated the statement was made when the facts were fresh in his mind, but he could not remember if he took an oath, to tell the truth when he made the statement. Ball testified that the statement was in the handwriting of Agent Lutz and that it had not been taken down word for word by the agent. Rather, 'We talked, and then he wrote this out, and then I signed it.' Ball read the recorded statement and Ball was again asked if he could remember the conversation with the agent and signing the recorded statement. Ball could not. The jury was excused. Ball testified to the judge that he could not recall that part of the statement where Williams said to him that the checks were stolen. P moved to have the statement admitted under past-recollection recorded. D argued that the hearsay exception could not be used because the recollection that Ball had was for most of the conversation but that part of it. The court ruled that the statement would be admitted as 'recollection of a statement that had been adopted by the witness.' The court did not admit the statement as an exhibit, but permitted it to be read to the jury after deleting the subjective impression, 'It was my understanding that someone else was stealing the checks and giving them to Glenn.' Before the statement was read to the jury Ball testified again that the statement was true and accurate at the time he gave it. Ball then read the statement. On cross, Ball testified that the writing and words of the statement were those of Agent Lutz. He stated that he was frightened when the agent first accused him of passing bad checks and that he wanted to cooperate. Agent Lutz testified that the statement was taken from Ball after several discussions, and at the time of the statement, there was no suggestion that Ball was under suspicion or was being accused. D was convicted and appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.