GEE, Circuit Judge:
Defendants Frances Pécora and her son, Nofio Pecoraro, were charged by indictment with conspiracy, wire fraud, and use of an interstate facility to carry out a bribery scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1343, and 1952.1 After pleas of not guilty were entered, both defendants moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.2 The district court deferred ruling on [423]*423this motion pending presentation of evidence at trial. Following a jury trial, each defendant was found guilty. The defendants again asserted their jurisdictional argument in a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. Sentences were assessed, and this appeal followed.
Background
Nofio Pecoraro was arrested on October 13,1980, on state charges of possession with intent to distribute marihuana. The next day, Frances Pécora met Sheriff Layrisson, who held her son in custody. Two weeks later, Jimmie Burrescia3 met with Layris-son and discussed campaign contributions (regarding a millage campaign) as well as the individuals arrested in the drug “bust,” including Pecoraro. On October 29, Burres-cia returned to the sheriff’s office and gave $9,000 in cash to Layrisson and the District Attorney of Tangipahoa Parish. Prior to the conversation, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been contacted, and the affair was recorded. The money was given to Burrescia by Frances Pécora for the purpose of insuring that her son would not be convicted. On November 5, 1980, the sheriff, District Attorney, and Burrescia met again to discuss the bribe, and this conversation was likewise recorded. A meeting in which Frances Pé-cora was included was set up for the next day at Burrescia’s home. This meeting, likewise recorded, revealed that Pécora wanted the help of the sheriff and the District Attorney in protecting her son. Several more meetings, all recorded, between Layrisson and Burrescia took place in the following weeks, and the sheriff indicated that he wanted to talk to Pécora. Thus Burrescia attempted to call Frances Pécora from the sheriff’s office, and learned that she was in Georgia. He then told the sheriff that he would have Pécora call the sheriff from Georgia.
Later that day, Burrescia called Sheriff Layrisson and then handed the telephone to Nofio Pecoraro to talk to the sheriff. Lay-risson asked Pecoraro to have his mother call him. The following morning, Frances Pécora returned the sheriff’s call and explained that she was in Georgia to visit a sick friend and that she had been told that he wanted to talk to her. In the conversation that ensued, many of the details and terms of the bribery scheme were discussed.
Threshold Issue: Jurisdiction under Sections 1952 and 1343
The initial issue raised by the defendants is whether the federal courts may assume jurisdiction over this local bribery ease, involving only Louisiana residents, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 or 1952 on the basis of a single interstate telephone call made at the request of Sheriff Layrisson. The government argues that this call was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Travel Act (§ 1952) and also under the wire fraud statute (§ 1343) because the phone call facilitated the bribery and because the call was made for the purpose of executing the bribery scheme. Passing upon this slender jurisdictional basis requires us to examine closely the recent cases construing these federal laws.
In United States v. Perrin, 580 F.2d 730 (5th Cir.1978), aff’d, 444 U.S. 37, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979), this court, faced with a similar claim that interstate contacts were insufficient to found jurisdiction under the Travel Act, held that one interstate phone call by a defendant to obtain gravity maps necessary to exploit stolen seismic exploration charts was sufficient to invoke § 1952 jurisdiction. We found “no requirement that the use of interstate facilities be essential to the scheme: it is enough that the interstate travel or the use of interstate facilities makes easier or facilitates the unlawful activity.” 580 F.2d at 736, citing Rewis v. United States, 418 F.2d 1218, 1221 (5th Cir.1969), rev’d on other grounds, 401 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971). We see no principled distinction between this case and the present one. There, as here, the defendant [424]*424argued “that the interstate nexus supplied by their use of interstate facilities was isolated, minimal, inconsequential, and nonessential to the ... scheme and insufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Travel Act.” Id. at 735. The court responded by holding that one telephone call sufficed.
And in United States v. Jones, 642 F.2d 909 (5th Cir.1981), we again held that “[a]s long as the interstate travel or use of the interstate facilities and the subsequent facilitating act make the unlawful activity easier, the jurisdictional requisites under § 1952 are complete.” 642 F.2d at 913, relying on Perrin, supra. The defendant in Jones made a trip from Oklahoma to Texas to cash wagering checks in “facilitation” of an ongoing gambling enterprise.
Under the facts before us, there can be no doubt that the phone call from Pécora in Georgia to the sheriff in Louisiana facilitated and made easier the bribery scheme. Indeed, the entire conversation consisted of details involving the attempted bribery, and the scheme was undoubtedly furthered by the lengthy discussion of these details. Nevertheless, the defendants argue that even if the bribery scheme was made easier due to the phone call, the call was so fortuitous and incidental that it does not invoke § 1952 jurisdiction.
In United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.1973), the court found that a phone call from Paris to New York, made by an undercover agent, “served no purpose that would not have been equally served by a call from New York,” and could thus be characterized as “a casual and incidental occurrence,” United States v. Corallo, 413 F.2d 1306, 1325 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 958, 90 S.Ct. 431, 24 L.Ed.2d 422 (1969), or “a matter of happenstance,” Rewis v. United States,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
GEE, Circuit Judge:
Defendants Frances Pécora and her son, Nofio Pecoraro, were charged by indictment with conspiracy, wire fraud, and use of an interstate facility to carry out a bribery scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1343, and 1952.1 After pleas of not guilty were entered, both defendants moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.2 The district court deferred ruling on [423]*423this motion pending presentation of evidence at trial. Following a jury trial, each defendant was found guilty. The defendants again asserted their jurisdictional argument in a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. Sentences were assessed, and this appeal followed.
Background
Nofio Pecoraro was arrested on October 13,1980, on state charges of possession with intent to distribute marihuana. The next day, Frances Pécora met Sheriff Layrisson, who held her son in custody. Two weeks later, Jimmie Burrescia3 met with Layris-son and discussed campaign contributions (regarding a millage campaign) as well as the individuals arrested in the drug “bust,” including Pecoraro. On October 29, Burres-cia returned to the sheriff’s office and gave $9,000 in cash to Layrisson and the District Attorney of Tangipahoa Parish. Prior to the conversation, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been contacted, and the affair was recorded. The money was given to Burrescia by Frances Pécora for the purpose of insuring that her son would not be convicted. On November 5, 1980, the sheriff, District Attorney, and Burrescia met again to discuss the bribe, and this conversation was likewise recorded. A meeting in which Frances Pé-cora was included was set up for the next day at Burrescia’s home. This meeting, likewise recorded, revealed that Pécora wanted the help of the sheriff and the District Attorney in protecting her son. Several more meetings, all recorded, between Layrisson and Burrescia took place in the following weeks, and the sheriff indicated that he wanted to talk to Pécora. Thus Burrescia attempted to call Frances Pécora from the sheriff’s office, and learned that she was in Georgia. He then told the sheriff that he would have Pécora call the sheriff from Georgia.
Later that day, Burrescia called Sheriff Layrisson and then handed the telephone to Nofio Pecoraro to talk to the sheriff. Lay-risson asked Pecoraro to have his mother call him. The following morning, Frances Pécora returned the sheriff’s call and explained that she was in Georgia to visit a sick friend and that she had been told that he wanted to talk to her. In the conversation that ensued, many of the details and terms of the bribery scheme were discussed.
Threshold Issue: Jurisdiction under Sections 1952 and 1343
The initial issue raised by the defendants is whether the federal courts may assume jurisdiction over this local bribery ease, involving only Louisiana residents, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 or 1952 on the basis of a single interstate telephone call made at the request of Sheriff Layrisson. The government argues that this call was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Travel Act (§ 1952) and also under the wire fraud statute (§ 1343) because the phone call facilitated the bribery and because the call was made for the purpose of executing the bribery scheme. Passing upon this slender jurisdictional basis requires us to examine closely the recent cases construing these federal laws.
In United States v. Perrin, 580 F.2d 730 (5th Cir.1978), aff’d, 444 U.S. 37, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979), this court, faced with a similar claim that interstate contacts were insufficient to found jurisdiction under the Travel Act, held that one interstate phone call by a defendant to obtain gravity maps necessary to exploit stolen seismic exploration charts was sufficient to invoke § 1952 jurisdiction. We found “no requirement that the use of interstate facilities be essential to the scheme: it is enough that the interstate travel or the use of interstate facilities makes easier or facilitates the unlawful activity.” 580 F.2d at 736, citing Rewis v. United States, 418 F.2d 1218, 1221 (5th Cir.1969), rev’d on other grounds, 401 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971). We see no principled distinction between this case and the present one. There, as here, the defendant [424]*424argued “that the interstate nexus supplied by their use of interstate facilities was isolated, minimal, inconsequential, and nonessential to the ... scheme and insufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Travel Act.” Id. at 735. The court responded by holding that one telephone call sufficed.
And in United States v. Jones, 642 F.2d 909 (5th Cir.1981), we again held that “[a]s long as the interstate travel or use of the interstate facilities and the subsequent facilitating act make the unlawful activity easier, the jurisdictional requisites under § 1952 are complete.” 642 F.2d at 913, relying on Perrin, supra. The defendant in Jones made a trip from Oklahoma to Texas to cash wagering checks in “facilitation” of an ongoing gambling enterprise.
Under the facts before us, there can be no doubt that the phone call from Pécora in Georgia to the sheriff in Louisiana facilitated and made easier the bribery scheme. Indeed, the entire conversation consisted of details involving the attempted bribery, and the scheme was undoubtedly furthered by the lengthy discussion of these details. Nevertheless, the defendants argue that even if the bribery scheme was made easier due to the phone call, the call was so fortuitous and incidental that it does not invoke § 1952 jurisdiction.
In United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.1973), the court found that a phone call from Paris to New York, made by an undercover agent, “served no purpose that would not have been equally served by a call from New York,” and could thus be characterized as “a casual and incidental occurrence,” United States v. Corallo, 413 F.2d 1306, 1325 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 958, 90 S.Ct. 431, 24 L.Ed.2d 422 (1969), or “a matter of happenstance,” Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493, 496 (1971). 486 F.2d at 682-83.
The defendants make several arguments on the basis of the above cases. As we have already said, we reject any contention that the phone call from Georgia did not facilitate or benefit the bribery scheme. We likewise reject the defendants’ suggestion that the request by the sheriff for Frances Pécora to call him was an attempt artificially to create or manufacture federal jurisdiction under the Travel Act; the district court found as a fact and on ample evidence that the sheriff requested Burrescia to have Frances Pécora call him before the sheriff knew that she was in Georgia. Unlike Archer, the interstate element in this case was not furnished solely by undercover agents and there is no question of any attempt to contrive jurisdiction.
Finally, we discern in the Travel Act no exception for casual and incidental occurrences or for “happenstance” ones. Its language is straightforward and comprehensive. Therefore, even were we not constrained by our prior holdings in Perrin and Jones, we would conclude that jurisdiction existed here.
As to the convictions under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the defendants repeat their arguments challenging jurisdiction. Here as well, however, the use of interstate wires need not actually further the illegal scheme, but need only be intended to execute the scheme. United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, 1010 (5th Cir.), remanded on rehearing, 605 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1979). In United States v. Davila, 592 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 843, 100 S.Ct. 85, 62 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979), we held that an interstate transmission “at the heart” of a scheme cannot be too incidental to invoke § 1343 jurisdiction. And we have likewise held that one phone call is sufficient to constitute an offense, Huff v. United States, 301 F.2d 760, 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 922, 83 S.Ct. 289, 9 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962). As with the travel act, jurisdiction was present here on the plain language of the wire fraud act.
Refusal to Excuse Juror
During an evening recess, when a juror answered the telephone at about 11:00 p.m., a female voice inquired whether she was on the jury. Upon being told that she was, the caller asked in what case. At this [425]*425point, the juror replied that she could not talk, hung up and disconnected the telephone. She advised the judge of the incident the next morning, stating in response to his questions that she would not be affected by it and that the other jurors regarded the incident, of which she had told them, as a prank. Out of her presence, defense counsel requested that she be excused and replaced by one of the several alternate jurors. Before us, appellant Pe-coraro contends that the judge erred in declining to do so. The situation was a delicate one, fraught with potential for error. See, e.g., United States v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446 (5th Cir.1980). We conclude, however, that Pecoraro has waived any right to complain of the court’s refusal to excuse the juror.
At the conclusion of the colloquy with the juror in question, the trial judge voiced his concern that to excuse her at such a time and on such a ground might encourage further attempts by the nighttime caller to disqualify jurors, so that “we may end up with no jury at all.” After further discussion between court and counsel, the court adopted — with the apparent acquiescence of all counsel — a compromise course: the juror would be retained on the panel, but counsel’s right to re-urge the motion to strike her or the entire panel at any later time was expressly reserved and maintained by the court. No effort to do so was ever made by any counsel thereafter.4 We conclude that this failure to raise the matter again at trial and, in effect, to gamble on a favorable verdict while reserving the objection for appeal constitutes an impermissible attempt to sandbag the judicial process.
This we cannot countenance; the point has been waived. Nor, assuming that considerations of plain error are appropriate to this situation of apparent deliberate waiver, are any of these apparent. The trial judge, impliedly at least, accepted the juror’s assertions that this simple inquiry as to her status as a juror would not affect her and that the other jurors regarded it as a prank or joke. In this, no such error appears as, by its obviousness or otherwise, was of such magnitude as to call in question the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 56 S.Ct. 891, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936).
Other Claims for Reversal
Appellants advance several other points for reversal: that the wire fraud and travel act counts are multiplicitous, that the court erred in refusing to admit transcripts of certain taped conversations, that certain comments in argument by counsel for the United States were erroneous, and that certain instructions and refusals to instruct by the trial judge — as in declining to instruct on a duress defense — were reversible. We have considered all of these carefully, in the context of the trial, and conclude that none merits discussion.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the judgments below are
AFFIRMED.