Home/D. Connecticut/United States v. Reed

United States v. Reed

313 F. Supp. 451, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11934
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedApril 27, 1970
DocketCrim. No. 12580
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 313 F. Supp. 451 (United States v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Reed, 313 F. Supp. 451, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11934 (D. Conn. 1970).

Opinion

TIMBERS, Chief Judge.

Defendant Edward W. Reed, having been convicted after a jury trial and having been sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1964), has moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R. Crim.P. The motion is denied.1

While all grounds for the motion have been carefully considered and rejected in light of the entire record, only one ground warrants brief mention, that set forth in paragraph 7 of the motion, namely, that, based on a purported “statement” by the son of Juror No. 2, said juror “indicated his belief in the defendant’s guilt prior to the conclusion of the trial.”

FACTS

Attached to the motion for a new trial is the following purported statement dated March 15, 1970 by Michael Bono-mo, who was the son of Juror No. 2 at the trial of this case: 2

“3/15/70
I Michael Bonomo state the following is a true statement to the best of my knowledge.
In the later part of February during a family conversation between me and him, he informed me he had been called for jury duty by the Federal Government. During a later conversation my father told me he was a juror on Edward Reeds bank robbery case. Because I had been in trouble before my father discussed parts of the case with me, warning me of the ills of crime. He stated during one of the conversations he thought Reed might have stole to help his family. In my opinion my father had reached a decission of Reeds guilt before the end of the trial.
Michael Bonomo
Witnesses: Donald F. Preston
John Reed
Carl White”

The facts regarding the obtaining of this statement, as disclosed at the April 6 hearing on defendant’s motion for a new trial, may be briefly summarized. On February 27, three days after the instant bank robbery trial began at Bridgeport, Michael Bonomo, son of Juror No. [453]*4532. was arrested upon state charges of possession of narcotics and possession of narcotics with intent to sell. He was held at the Bridgeport Division of the Connecticut Correctional Center for lack of bail. Michael Bonomo’s father, Patrick Bonomo, visited his son at the Correctional Center sometime during the bank robbery trial. Also being held at the Correctional Center while Michael Bonomo was there were the three witnesses to the Michael Bonomo statement of March 15, i. e. Donald F. Preston, Carl White and John T. Reed, each of whom was being held, inter alia, in connection with charges pending against him in this Court.3 Michael Bonomo’s statement of March 15 was prepared by another inmate and was copied by Michael Bonomo from that inmate’s notes. The statement was referred to as an “affidavit” by defendant’s counsel at the time of sentencing on March 16; at that time the Court directed that the matter be brought on by “an appropriate motion” to which the government should be given “an opportunity to respond”; and the Court further stated that “it would be advisable to file this motion as promptly as possible” (Transcript of March 16, 1970, pp. 3-4).

OPINION

At the outset it should be noted that the Michael Bonomo statement of March 15, 1970 is not an affidavit; nor is it otherwise in evidentiary form. Indeed, there is grave doubt that the “statement” attributed to Michael Bonomo was ever made by him; and there is no evidence whatever that any statements therein attributed to Juror No. 2, Patrick Bonomo, were ever made by the juror.4

[454]*454Solely for the purpose of testing the validity of defendant’s allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of his motion for a new trial, the Court will assume (contrary to the established facts) (1) that Michael Bonomo’s statement of March 15, 1970 is, or could be made, in affidavit or other evidentiary form; (2) that Michael Bonomo would testify that his father had “indicated his belief in the defendant’s guilt prior to the conclusion of the trial”; and (3) that Patrick Bonomo, Juror No. 2, would testify that he entertained a belief in the defendant’s guilt prior to the conclusion of the trial.

The Court holds as a matter of law that such facts, even if proven, would not constitute grounds for the granting of a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P.

New doctrines are more firmly established in our jurisprudence than the proposition that the validity of a verdict may not be attacked, and hence a new trial will not be granted, upon a showing of the mental operations and emotional reactions of jurors in reaching a particular verdict. Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates, Preliminary Draft, March 1969, Rule 6-06(b); 5 ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Trial By Jury, Approved Draft 1968, § 5.7(a); see McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267 (1915); United States v. Grieco, 261 F.2d 414 (2 Cir. 1958) (per curiam), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 907 (1959); Rotondo v. Isthmian Steamship Co., 243 F.2d 581, 583 (2 Cir. 1957); Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corp., 160 F.2d 432, 435 (2 Cir. 1947).

ORDER

ORDERED that defendant’s motion for a new trial in all respects is denied.

[455]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Dioguardi
361 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. New York, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
313 F. Supp. 451, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-reed-ctd-1970.