tickets, and that Irvin and Hackett agreed to see Long the next day about it.
Irvin testified that when he and Hackett went to Long Hauling Company on the following day and explained that the FBI Agents had seized the nine envelopes, Long said "We are sunk. We are beat. We are finished." Hackett then explained to Long that the Democratic organization of the Borough of North Braddock was holding a raffle to raise money for the November elections and that there were tickets available which would cover the $240 in each envelope. Irvin testified that Long asked if they thought it would work and further stated that he, Long, would have to check with his attorney to see "if it was legal and if it would work". Irvin testified that at that time he took two thousand raffle tickets
from his truck and gave them to Long stating that the additional one hundred and sixty tickets would be delivered the following day. True to his word, on October 18, Hackett delivered the one hundred and sixty raffle tickets
to Irvin's place of business and Irvin took them to Long. Irvin testified that Long again asked if he (Irvin) thought the raffle ticket story would work and Long stated "that if we all stick together and stick to the story, it will work."
The tapes and Irvin's testimony showed that on November 1, 1974, he and Hackett drove to Pittsburgh to appear and testify before the Federal Grand Jury. The conversation, as recorded, indicated that Hackett, in discussing the October 16 seizure, said "I just thought real quick, you know, I said that's for raffle tickets, Stewart. . . ." The tape of that conversation also revealed that Hackett said the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not break the $240 in each envelope into monthly payments because "we wasn't getting $60 a month, we were only getting $50 . . . 'cause Drabik was cutting himself in." (In his testimony, Irvin explained the discrepancy. Drabik, a former Councilman, was cutting himself in on the payments, unknown to Long. So Long was paying $60 a month for each Councilman, but they were only getting $50.)
Defendant Hackett presented no evidence at the trial and Defendant Long presented character witnesses as to his good reputation in the community for truthfulness and being a law abiding citizen.
I. VERDICT WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND NOT CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.
Defendants contend that the verdict rendered is contrary to the weight of the evidence and not supported by substantial evidence. The tests for legal sufficiency of evidence is whether the Government produced substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government. United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Pratt, 429 F.2d 690 (3d Cir. 1970). Our review of the evidence above indicates that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict of guilty. In part, the jury had before it the physical evidence of the payoffs in the form of the nine envelopes each containing the $240, the surprise expressed by Hackett upon being caught with the money in the nine envelopes, the attempts to invent the raffle ticket explanation, including even consultation with their attorneys on the matter and the failure to explain the odd number of 2160 tickets, delivered after payment was made and in two different trips. All of this evidence formed a sufficient factual backdrop from which the jury could well find the guilt of both Defendants on each charge. The foregoing discussion also applies so this Court cannot say the jury verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
II. THE ALLEGED ERRORS OF THE COURT
Defendants contend that this Court erred in admitting into evidence Government's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and Government Exhibits 1(a), 2(a) and 3(a). These exhibits were envelopes, the former having typewritten versions of Irvin's handwritten notations which appeared on the latter. The notation on the envelopes read as follows:
Exhibit 1A (Handwritten]
Jan. Long Hauling Monday
Received $50.00 3-18-74 10 PM
from Jordan Scarpino
10 P.M. Pickup Truck
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.