Mapp would have to make a payment to him; otherwise Mapp would go to jail. The government's surveillance officers observed Henshaw in courtroom 313 many times, although none of them saw him wearing a court officer's blazer or coat. The testimony was that between April and October Henshaw was in Harris' courtroom at least three times a week and in many instances he was seen going in and about the courtroom in different locations. There was also testimony that Henshaw responded to Harris' beckoning hand signals which directed Henshaw who would be somewhere in the courtroom to go back into the anteroom. Henshaw would often go into that anteroom and talk to Harris with the anteroom door that leads to the courtroom closed. There is evidence by stipulation that Henshaw was never an employee of the Philadelphia court system and there is no other explanation for his routine presence at courtroom 313 other than some regular private courtroom relationship with Harris. There was evidence that Cheeks was in the courtroom on a daily basis and that he was an official employee of the court; he was Harris' "Judicial Aide" (a/k/a "Personal Aide"). Newton Endy ("Endy"), a court officer, also testified that Henshaw was in courtroom 313 regularly and met with Harris regularly, but Endy was not privy to those conversations because they took place in the anteroom.
The tape recordings that were both recorded before and received into evidence before tape G-91 support the admissibility of tape G-91. Up to tape G-91 there are various admissible tapes on which Henshaw was recorded talking to Harris about matters pertinent to the Mapp matter. On both tape G-78 and G-91 Harris is asking for "bread" (money). On both tape G-62 and G-78 reference is made to the date of the "23rd." On tape G-62, recorded September 5, 1986, Henshaw is heard telephoning the office of criminal case listings in City Hall to speak with Eddie Attanazio, after which Henshaw hands the telephone receiver to Harris who asks Attanazio who will be presiding over the preliminary hearings at the Front Street and Westmoreland Avenue location on September 23rd, and presumably while Attanazio is searching his papers for the answer to that question, Harris asks Henshaw (who is in Harris' office with Harris), "What's his name?" Henshaw answers, "His name is Mapp, Alvis Mapp." On tape G-78, recorded in the anteroom on September 17, 1986, Harris is heard asking Henshaw, "You got anymore bread today?" and Henshaw answers, "Okay, after, after the (unintelligible)." Harris next asked Henshaw when that event would occur after which Henshaw would have more money for Harris. Henshaw answered that the event would occur on the 23rd. Based on these conversations, Mapp's testimony, the testimony of the two surveillance agents and the testimony of Deputy Court Administrator Joseph Cairone, the government's position as to the significance of tape G-78 was that the event in question was Mapp's September 23rd preliminary hearing at Front Street and Westmoreland Avenue and Henshaw said that after that Henshaw would have more money for Harris.
In light of the foregoing evidence the court concluded that the government proved by at least a preponderance of the non-hearsay admissible evidence that a joint undertaking or venture existed between Harris, Henshaw, Cheeks and others at the time of the tape recorded conversations so that the conversation between Harris and Cheeks on tape G-91 was elicited, authorized and/or consented to by Henshaw. Accordingly, tape G-91 and specifically Cheeks' statement that "I got Tommy Henshaw on the line," was properly admitted against Henshaw as co-conspirator statements that are admissible pursuant to the co-conspirator or joint venturer exception to the hearsay rule, and/or as a statement of a person who would be an agent of Henshaw instructed to give that message to Harris. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2).
Henshaw's only witness, James Shuler, testified that Henshaw knew Harris and that Shuler had recommended Henshaw to Mapp for the purpose of securing an attorney for Mapp. It seems plain that the jury could easily infer that this evidence was in keeping with Henshaw's intentions of carrying through with the extortion that the victim (Mapp) testified actually occurred with the payment of $ 500.00 from Mapp to Henshaw in Buddy's Bar to have the Mapp case referred at the October 7, 1986 arraignment to be tried and decided by Harris.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Henshaw's motion for judgment of acquittal and/or for a new trial will be denied.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 18th day of May, 1988, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, after consideration of defendant Thomas Henshaw's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or For a New Trial," IT IS ORDERED that the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for a new trial are hereby denied.
TIME: 12:31 PM
KH - JUDGE KENNETH HARRIS
CC - CONRAD CHEEKS