Arroyo v. United States

RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Union Station

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

CITATION: 359 US 419 (1959)
ARGUED: Mar 02, 1959
DECIDED: May 04, 1959

Facts of the case


Media for Arroyo v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 02, 1959 (Part 1) in Arroyo v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 02, 1959 (Part 2) in Arroyo v. United States

John R. Hally:

-- and that is we feel the unfairness inherent in the scope of the evidence, it opens up to use by the Government in such a trial.

We have charged this here or raised it as a second question namely that there was a fatal variance between -- fatal and prejudicial variance between the indictment and the particulars and the proof.

The Government contends that we have, in effect, smuggled a question in.

I don't -- I feel that it was fairly raised, but certainly, it was not expressly raised on the petition for a certiorari, but we feel that it's clear on the record.

The defendant here was indicted for receiving $15,000 on February 24th.

He asked for particulars and the Government said it was -- it was received in the form of two checks, for $7500 each on February 21st.

At that point, the defendant fairly foresaw, I submit, the scope approved for the trial, February 21st, the collective bargaining agreement, February 24th.

Instead of the trial, he was met with evidence of these withdrawals of moneys from the bank accounts extending to April 14th, almost two months after the date specified in these particulars.

Even if this is not available to us as in the point on appeal, we say that this fact cuts to the invalidity on the Government's theory.

Because certainly, if evidence, two months after the date which Section 302 deals with, namely, the receiving or the paying by the employer, the receiving by the employee can be used, why could an evidence six months, eight months, a year, payments to welfare funds are made annually under such a scope of evidence, the entire dealings between the employer and the employee would be available to the Government and its proof in all trust funds, in all subsequent breaches of them could be brought within the ambit of 302, which should be clearly contrary to the obvious intent of Congress in now dealing with taking up grappling and attempting legislation to cover this whole subject of misuse for personal benefit of trust fund moneys.

Earl Warren:

Mr. Grimm.

Eugene S. Grimm:

May it please the Court.

This is a labor racketeering case in the very real sense.

I first would like to lay one ghost that has arisen with respect to this notation on page 20 of the record.

It indicates a summons for trial for embezzlement.

I made an inquiry regarding that and I've been informed by the United States attorney from Puerto Rico, that the prosecution of Arroyo in Superior Court Ponce Division involved two charges for embezzlement of funds belonging to the union of the Central Mercedita, Ponce local, committed April 14th and May 11th, 1953.

Jury trial was held and Arroyo was acquitted March 12th, 1957, which was after this prosecution.

In any event, it's clear that the substance of the charges -- a charge, in this case, was not the substance of the trial in Puerto Rico local court.

Hugo L. Black:

May I ask you, is it the reason he could not be indicted for embezzlement there on the evidence that you have?

Eugene S. Grimm:

Yes, sir.

That's the --

Hugo L. Black:

You're going to (Voice Overlap) --

Eugene S. Grimm:

That's the heart -- that's the heart of our argument in this case, Your Honor.

Hugo L. Black:

Then he could not be prosecuted for embezzlement of these funds?

Eugene S. Grimm:

That's right.

Earl Warren:

With the -- with the embezzlement charges in Puerto Rico, the same transactions?

Eugene S. Grimm:

Your Honor, I'd gather from the statement in this telegram since it involved in -- an embezzlement from the union that it was not the same as the charges -- as the charges in this case that is the substance was different.

Earl Warren:

Maybe it --

Eugene S. Grimm:

But in --

Earl Warren:

-- inquires acquittal, because it's from a trust fund and not the union.