UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert CRAIG, Frank P. North, Jr., Peter V. Pappas and Jack E. Walker, Defendants-Appellants, 573 F.2d 455

WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge. In December, 1974, fifteen persons were charged in various counts of a fourteen count indictment. Count One charged the defendants with conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Counts Two through Twelve charged the substantive crime of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, alleging that the defendants and unindicted co-conspirators devised a scheme and artifice to “defraud the citizens of the State of Illinois of their right to the loyal, faithful, and honest services of those defendants and co-conspirators who were public officers and members of the Illinois General Assembly ... in the performance of acts related to their official duties and functions.” Counts Two through Twelve also alleged that the defendants devised a scheme to “defraud the State of Illinois, its citizens, its public officers, its public employees and the loyal, faithful and honest members of the Illinois General Assembly of their right to have the State’s legislative business conducted honestly and impartially, and in accordance with the laws of Illinois, free from deceit, corruption, misconduct, conflict of interest, bribery and fraud, and willful concealment thereof.” Each of Counts Two through Twelve alleged that the various defendants and co-schemers caused a specific mailing to be made for the purposes of executing the scheme.

Each of Counts Two through Twelve are also alleged to be overt acts of the conspiracy charged in Count One. Counts Thirteen and Fourteen charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, alleging that the various defendants caused an individual to travel in interstate commerce with intent to promote an unlawful activity, namely bribery in violation of Illinois Revised Statutes,

Chapter 38, § 33-1. Prior to trial seven defendants entered pleas of guilty to Count One, and the other charges against them were dismissed. Eight defendants stood trial. Following a jury trial that lasted over two months, six defendants were found guilty, and two were acquitted. The proceedings and disposition as to each defendant are set forth in the margin. I. FACTS In the six county metropolitan Chicago area, a trade association known as the Northern Illinois Ready-Mix and Materials Association (NIRMMA) represented the interest of the ready-mix cement industry.

For many years prior to the events which formed the basis of this prosecution, NIRMMA, through its Transportation Committee, was desirous of increasing by one cubic yard per truck the amount of ready-mix cement which industry trucks could legitimately haul on Illinois roads. The Board of Directors of NIRMMA held a meeting in Chicago on October 20, 1971.

At this meeting, James McBride, an employee of Material Service Corporation and an unindicted co-conspirator, informed the NIRMMA Board that the Illinois garbage hauling industry had just obtained weight relief for garbage trucks through the passage of legislation in the Illinois General Assembly, and that the time was right for the ready-mix cement industry to do likewise. McBride indicated that he knew an attorney, defendant Peter V. Pappas, who could assist the ready-mix industry in drafting their legislation for a $5,000.00 fee. McBride also stated at the meeting that Peter V.

Pappas was very close to the Illinois Motor Vehicle Laws Commission — an important Commission in obtaining the passage of weight relief legislation — and that any such legislation would cost a considerable amount of money. Two NIRMMA Board members, Arnold Moeller of Meyer Material Company and Bernard Arquilla of Accurate Ready-Mix, estimated that the weight relief legislation could run as high as $100,000.00. About one week after this meeting, McBride met with members of NIRMMA’s Transportation Committee at the NIRMMA offices in Chicago. McBride informed the members that the assistance of Peter V.

Pappas was necessary in procuring the desired weight relief legislation, and that an undisclosed amount of money would be required. Morris A. Lauwereins, an unindicted co-conspirator and co-chairman of the NIRMMA Transportation Committee, participated with other committee members in drawing up an agenda specifying what relief the industry desired, and instructed McBride to meet with Peter V. Pappas.

In order to assure a state-wide effort for ready-mix truck weight relief, Lauwereins told other committee members to contact the downstate ready-mix association, known as the Illinois Division — Midwest Ready-Mix Concrete Association. McBride, Merlin Wille, Lauwereins, and Tom Connolly, the Executive Secretary of NIRMMA — all of whom were associated with the ready-mix industry — met with Peter V. Pappas several days later in a private room at a Chicago hotel. Peter V. Pappas outlined the procedures to be followed in seeking weight relief legislation.

After Lauwereins gave him the agenda specifying the relief sought by the industry, Peter V. Pappas stated that an unspecified amount of money would be required at a later time, and that his fee for drafting the proposed bill was $5,000.00. The record demonstrates that sometime during the period from mid-October, 1971, to the early part of November, 1971, Peter V. Pappas spoke with Representative Pete Pappas, a Republican member of the Illinois House of Representatives and a member of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Laws Commission. Peter V.

Pappas informed Pete Pappas of his meeting with the ready-mix industry people and stated “he thought he could get us some money for the passage of weight relief legislation.” In answer to Peter V. Pappas’ question as to how much it would take, Pete Pappas answered that he did not know, but would check and get back to Peter V. Pappas. Pete Pappas testified that he then spoke with defendant Donald Carpentier, a Republican member of the Illinois Senate, and also a member of the Motor Vehicle Laws Commission. Pete Pappas testified that he told Carpentier that Peter V.

Pappas had said “that there was a chance that we could get some money on weight relief from the ready-mix people,” and had inquired of him as to how much it would take. Pete Pappas further testified that later that same day he talked with defendant Robert Craig, a Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives. Pete Pappas told Craig that Peter V. Pappas had said “that there was a chance that we could get some money on the weight relief for the ready-mix industry.” After reiterating to Craig that Peter V.

Pappas had asked him how much it would take and that he answered him that he did not know, and that he had asked the same question of Carpentier and had received the same answer, Pete Pappas testified that he asked Craig: “Bob, if you have any idea as to how much money it would take to get it through?” Craig answered that he wasn’t sure but would get back to him. Pete Pappas further testified that Craig contacted him within a few days. A conversation ensued among Craig, Pete Pappas and Carpentier. Pete Pappas asked Craig if he had any figures or any idea how much it would take.

Craig responded that he thought he could get it through for “ten”. Following Craig’s lead, Pete Pappas and Carpentier each indicated that it would take “ten” to get the legislation through his side. During this conversation, Craig indicated that the money would have to be paid as the bill passed each House. Carpentier was to handle the Republican side of the Senate; Craig, the Democratic side of the House; and Pete Pappas, the Republican side of the House.

The three then discussed the need for a Democratic Senator to handle the bill on that side, and Pete Pap-pas indicated that he would talk with Senator Kenneth Course. A few hours later, Pete Pappas spoke with Senator Course at Course’s desk on the floor of the Illinois Senate.

Pappas said, “Kenny, there is going to be some money on the cement bill and I just finished talking with Bob [Craig] and Don [Carpentier] and we are going to try and get ten for each side to get the bill through and I want to know if you would be willing to handle the Democratic side of the Senate.” Course responded: “It is whatever you guys decide is fine with me.” Pete Pappas advised Course that the money would be paid as the bill passed each House.

While these events took place m spring-field, Wille and Lauwereins met with representatives of the downstate ready-mix trade association, the Illinois Division — Midwest Ready-Mix Concrete Association (IDMRCA), on October 30, 1971, at a restaurant in Bloomington, Illinois. Defendants Jack Chalden and Herbert Craig, both associated with ID-MRCA, and Lou Marcy and Ed Sembel of other downstate concerns were told by Lauwereins that the time was right for ready-mix truck weight relief and that ID-MRCA and NIRMMA should join together in the effort because it would be expensive.

Lauwereins also told the group that it would be wise for a downstate spokesman to promote and carry through the bill. He indicated to the downstaters that there would be a $5,000.00 fee for drafting the bill, as well as other unidentified expenses. On November 5, 1971, a luncheon meeting was held at a Chicago hotel. Present at this meeting were downstaters Chalden and Sembel and NIRMMA members Wille, Lauwereins, McBride, Connolly, one Wes Wiggington and one Bill Hendrickson. Lauwereins chaired the meeting, and introduced Peter V.

Pappas to those present as the gentleman who could assist them in securing the legislation. Peter V. Pappas then informed the group that weight relief should be sought for ready-mix trucks only. Peter V. Pappas also presented Tom Connolly of NIRMMA with two $2500.00 invoices for his drafting fee, and indicated that an undisclosed amount of money would be required at a later date, and that they “should be prepared to participate with campaign contributions and other legislative support.” Some discussion ensued as to who would function as a conduit for the funds, but nothing was decided.

According to Wille’s testimony, Peter V. Pappas explained at the meeting that the bill he would draft “would appear to be very much a watered down bill” on the first and second readings, and on the third reading, amendments would be introduced “that would really introduce the gist of what we wanted.” Peter V. Pappas further explained, according to Wille, that the undisclosed amount of money would be required only if the bill passed both Houses, was signed by the Governor, and was indexed. Chalden’s testimony as to the November 5, 1971 luncheon meeting revealed that Peter V.

Pappas suggested to those present that an effective way of introducing the bill was through the Illinois Motor Vehicle Laws Commission (MVLC or Commission). He further stated that it would be possible, if the bill were properly presented, to have the bill come out as a Commission sponsored bill. Since a Commission meeting was close at hand, Peter V. Pappas advised those present that they would have to develop something quickly and that he would help them develop testimony. Peter V.

Pappas reiterated the sentiments Lauwereins expressed earlier in Bloomington that it would be best to have a downstate spokesman introduce the bill in the Commission. Meanwhile, back in Springfield, a few days after Pete Pappas, Craig and Carpentier discussed the amount of money required to get the bill through, Pete Pappas spoke with Peter V. Pappas in the Capitol Building. Pete Pappas informed Peter V. Pappas that he had talked with Craig, Carpentier and Course and that “they would need $20,000.00 for the House and $20,-000.00 for the Senate” and that Peter V.

Pappas was to put “whatever he needed for himself on top of that and that the money would have to be paid as the legislation passed each House.” Peter V. Pappas then said, “O.K., I will get back to you.” The Commission held a meeting at a hotel in Springfield on the evening of November 8, 1971. Herbert Craig of the downstate industry association (ID-MRCA) was to make a presentation of the industry’s proposal on ready-mix weight relief. On the afternoon preceding the meeting, Peter V. Pappas met with Wille, Lauwereins, Chalden, McBride, Marcy and Herbert Craig to prepare and rehearse Herbert Craig’s presentation.

Following Herbert’s presentation to the Commission, the Commission directed Herbert to return to the Commission’s De cember meeting with a drafted bill or drafted presentation. About ten days after the MVLC meeting, the recording secretary of MVLC, Mary Ellen Kingery, mailed copies of a notice of the date, time, and place of the December, 1971, meeting to persons on a mailing list she maintained. Tom Connolly, the executive secretary of NIRMMA, who had earlier requested that NIRMMA be placed on the MVLC mailing list, received a copy of the notice of the December, 1971 MVLC meeting in the mail.

On December 8, 1971, Peter V. Pappas presented a request to the Legislative Reference Bureau, a bill drafting agency for Illinois government, for the drafting of the bill that ultimately became House Bill 4176, the “cement bill.” At the December MVLC meeting, a subcommittee was created to consider the ready-mix legislation. Course, Carpentier, and Pete Pappas were included as members of the subcommittee. Following this meeting, Miss Kingery mailed out notices to those on the mailing list informing them of the date, time, and place of the January 1972 MVLC meeting.

The notice also announced that the subcommittee would report on the ready-mix matter. The MVLC meeting took place on January 10, 1972, in Springfield. On the afternoon of that day, Peter V. Pappas presented to an executive session of the MVLC the proposals of the ready-mix industry, among which was the proposal that ultimately became House Bill 4176. On that same day, Wille met McBride in a bar at a Springfield hotel. After exchanging pleasantries, McBride told Wille “Well, Mert, I have gotten the word. I know what they want now, fifty big ones.” McBride informed Wille that Peter V.

Pappas had given him this figure earlier, that the money would have to be in cash, and that if the bill did not become law, no money would be required. McBride and Wille then went to Lauwereins’ room in the same hotel and informed him of the $50,000.00 figure. Later in the evening of the same day, Wille, McBride, Lauwereins, and Peter V. Pappas met in the same bar in the Springfield hotel. Peter V. Pappas stated that he thought that the garbage legislation had cost as much as the ready-mix legislation, and that they should consider a conduit for the funds.

No decision was reached, however, as to who would act as the conduit. During the period of February 13 to 17, 1972, NIRMMA held its annual convention in Miami Beach, Florida. At this convention a group of several NIRMMA members engaged in a poolside conversation as to the ready-mix bill. After Wille and Connolly informed the group that $50,000.00 in cash was required to secure the bill’s passage, a discussion ensued as to how the money could be raised. Several suggestions were made, but the record does not show that any decision on this issue resulted from the discussion.

A couple of weeks after the NIRMMA convention, McBride had a telephone conversation with Tom Connolly. McBride told Connolly that the $50,000.00 fund would have to be available by April 1, “as the people wanted to know that the money was available as the legislation was going through.” McBride said that the cash would be placed in a safe deposit box. Signators on the box were to be Connolly and another NIRMMA member, Peter V. Pap-pas and his wife. In mid-February, 1972, after the Florida convention, the NIRMMA Transportation Committee held a meeting.

Lauwereins, who chaired the meeting, explained the cement bill and its benefits to the ready-mix industry. Lauwereins stated that the bill would cost $50,000.00 in cash, and that it had been decided that the sum would be raised by assessing NIRMMA members $40.00 for each ready-mix truck they owned. NIRMMA Transportation Committee members were then assigned specific collection duties. About this time, on February 29, 1972, Lauwereins travelled from Chicago to Indianapolis, Indiana and addressed a group of downstate Illinois ready-mix executives including Chalden and Herbert Craig.

This address took place in a hotel room in Indianapolis. The downstate ready-mix industry association (ID-MRCA) was holding its annual convention in Indianapolis. Lauwereins told the group that the favorable ready-mix bill would cost $50,000.00 in cash, which had to be collected quickly and placed in a safe deposit box. After indicating to the group that the money would not be paid out unless the bill became law, Lauwereins encouraged ID-MRCA to support the effort by collecting half of the $50,000.00 amount. Lauwereins then returned to Chicago.

In spite of Lauwereins encouragement and request for support, ID-MRCA refused to participate in the cash collection effort. During the month of March, 1972, NIRMMA Transportation Committee members pursued the collection duties previously assigned by Lauwereins. By the end of the month, Connolly told Wille to meet him at the NIRMMA office with the collected cash. Wille told Connolly that the fund was $3160.00 short because some companies had refused to contribute. Wille agreed to make up the $3160.00 shortage in the form of an advance from Moeller through Meyer Material.

On the morning of March 30,1972, Wille, Lauwereins, McBride and Connolly met at the-NIRMMA office. A total of $50,000.00 in cash was counted by Connolly and placed in an envelope. Wille informed Connolly that Moeller of Meyer Material had contributed the $3160.00 to make up for the shortage and suggested that false expense vouchers should be prepared and presented to Connolly to reimburse Meyer Material for the extra money. Connolly agreed, and false vouchers were prepared and submitted to NIRMMA by Wille, Moeller, Lauwereins, and Arquilla.

Lauwereins and Arquilla mailed their expense vouchers to the NIRMMA office. Connolly then prepared NIRMMA checks which, when cashed, were used to reimburse Meyer Material for its $3160.00 advance. Having assembled the fund, Connolly and McBride left the NIRMMA offices and drove to the First National Bank of Lake Bluff where they met Peter V. Pappas in the parking lot. Peter V. Pappas asked Connolly if he had the money, to which Connolly answered affirmatively. Thereupon, Connolly, with the money in his hand, and Peter V. Pappas entered the bank. McBride remained in the car. After entering the bank, Peter V.

Pappas mentioned to Connolly that he had arranged for a safe deposit box. Connolly signed a signature card, and took a second signature card for Arquilla’s signature. Connolly received a key to the safe deposit box, and then he and Peter V. Pappas took the box which the clerk had handed to them into a small room where both counted the money and placed it in the box. They returned the box to the clerk, who placed it in the vault. Both departed from the bank. House Bill 4176, the “Cement Bill,” was introduced in the Illinois House of Representatives on April 11, 1972. Two or three days prior to that date, Peter V.

Pappas told Pete Pappas in the rotunda area of the Capitol Building that the cash had been collected and was in a safe deposit box in the Chicago area. Peter V. Pappas assured Pete Pappas that, although the money was located in Chicago, there would be no problem in delivering the money. Peter V. Pap-pas also told Carpentier that the money had been put in a safe deposit box. House Bill 4176 was assigned to the House Motor Vehicle Committee. A notice was posted on April 20, 1972 for hearings by that committee. Prior to the posting, Peter V.

Pappas told Pete Pappas that the cash was in a safe deposit box and everything was set to go. Peter V. Pappas also said that the industry would pay the money as soon as the governor signed the bill. Pete Pappas then stated, “Wait a minute, Pete. That wasn’t our deal. Our deal was that the money was to be paid as it passed each House.” Peter V. Pappas replied, “Well, this is what the industry wants.” Pete Pappas then responded, “Well, I’m going to have to talk to Bob on that.”- Immediately thereafter Pete . Pappas spoke with Robert Craig and told Craig that Peter V.

Pappas had said that the industry was not going to pay any money until the bill had been signed by the governor. Craig responded “That wasn’t our deal. Our deal was it was supposed to be paid as it passed each House.” Pete Pappas replied, .“Well, then we better go over and talk to -Pete [Peter V. Pappas], about it.” Within a few minutes, Craig and Pete Pappas spoke with Peter V. Pappas. Craig said “Peter, our deal was that we were to get paid when the bill passed each House.” Peter V.

Pappas replied, “The industry is not going to pay until this bill is signed by the governor.” After further discussion, Robert Craig asked Pete Pappas if it were all right if they compromised and said, “We would let it go until it passed both Houses and then get the money.” Craig then told Peter V. Pappas that, “We would compromise and the industry would have to pay us the money after it passed both the House and the Senate but it had nothing to do with the governor’s signature.” Peter V. Pappas responded, “Okay, I will talk to them.” A few days later, Peter V.

Pappas informed Pete Pappas that “the industry would pay, would go ahead with our agreement and pay when the bill passed both houses of the General Assembly.” House Bill 4176 was passed by the Illinois House of Representatives on May 12, 1972. The bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate on May 15, 1972. About a week or two weeks before House Bill 4176 was introduced in the Illinois Senate, Carpentier spoke with ten Republican senators, among whom was Jack E. Walker, a Republican member of the Illinois Senate from Lansing, Illinois.

In the conversation with Walker, Carpentier asked Walker to support the cement bill and Walker said he would. Carpentier also told Walker “that there would be help in his district.” After speaking with Walker and the nine other Republican senators, Carpentier told Peter V. Pappas that Carpentier “could muster 11 votes on the Republican side.” Peter V. Pappas replied that he would see what he could do on the other side of the aisle.

One or two days after that, Carpentier told Course that Carpentier had 11 votes and that Course “would have to muster up the rest.” While House Bill 4176 was pending in the Senate committee (around June 1, 1972), Herbert Craig received a phone call from Lauwereins who told Herbert Craig that the bill was in jeopardy and that Peter V. Pappas needed $500 in cash. Lauwereins told Herbert Craig to draw the $500 from his out-of-pocket expenses and Lauwereins would render a statement from NIRMMA covering the $500. Lauwereins told Herbert Craig to take the $500 to the third floor of the Capitol Building where Peter V.

Pappas would meet him. Herbert Craig related Lauwereins’ request to Chalden. The next day, June 2, 1972, Herbert Craig and Chalden prepared a $500 check and cashed it. Herbert Craig took the cash to the third floor of the rotunda area and was met by Peter V. Pappas. Peter V. Pappas asked Herbert Craig if he had the envelope with the money and when Herbert Craig replied, “Yes,” Peter V. Pappas said “Follow me.” They went into an office and Peter V. Pappas opened a magazine, laid it on a desk and told Herbert Craig to put the envelope with the money inside the magazine. Craig did as instructed and Peter V.

Pappas said “That’s all. You may be excused.” Herbert Craig then left and related the incident to Chalden. The Senate sponsor of House Bill 4176 was originally Senator Harris. About mid-June 1972, while House Bill 4176 was pending in the Senate, Carpentier told Walker that Senator Harris could no longer sponsor the bill because Harris was sick. Carpentier told Walker that if Walker would handle the bill, “that an additional $500 would be given him.” Walker agreed to handle the bill. Thirty senators voted in favor of House Bill 4176 in the Illinois Senate, which was the exact number of votes required for passage.

House Bill 4176 was passed by the Illinois Senate on June 21, 1972. Chalden, the executive secretary of the ID-MRCA was sitting in the Senate gallery when House Bill 4176 passed the Senate. The following day, June 22, 1972, Chalden prepared a bulletin announcing the fact that House Bill 4176 had passed the Senate and was heading to the governor. Chalden mailed a copy of that bulletin to every member of the ID-MRCA, including Material Service Corporation, to inform them of the bill’s passage and to urge them to contact the governor and urge the governor to sign the bill into law.

Connolly mailed a similar bulletin to every regular member of NIRMMA on June 23, 1972 to urge the members of NIRMMA to write, wire or call the governor and ask the governor for favorable approval of the bill. Wille, upon receipt of a copy of the bulletin, sent a telegram to the governor, and received a response from the governor’s office. Carpentier also urged the governor to sign the bill. The spring session of the Illinois General Assembly ended on July 1,1972. After the end of the legislative session, Pete Pappas telephoned Peter V. Pappas in early July 1972 and said, “Peter, this is Pete.

I am just calling to see when we are going to get our money.” Peter V. Pappas replied that he was trying to get it together and they were a little slow, but he would see what he could do.” Peter V. Pappas recommended that Pete Pappas call McBride and gave McBride’s phone number to Pete Pappas.

In the early to middle part of July 1972, Pete Pappas telephoned McBride and told McBride, “Jim, this is Representative Pete Pappas and I am calling about the money.” McBride said, “Well, they are working on it.” Pete Pappas replied “Well, we have some commitments to meet.” McBride responsed, “Well, let me check into it and I will get back to you.” In early August 1972, Peter V. Pappas informed Pete Pappas that the industry was not going to pay because there was a rumor that the governor was going to veto the bill.

Pete Pappas responsed, “I don’t care about that, we have commitments to meet and we at least want to pay our commitments.” Peter V. Pappas replied “Well, why don’t you call Morry Lauwereins and talk to him about it,” and gave Pete Pappas Lauwereins’ phone number. That same day or the next day, Pete Pappas telephoned Lauwereins and said “Mr. Lauwereins, this is Representative Pete Pappas and I am calling about the money.” Lauwereins said “I understand that the governor is going to veto the bill.” Pete Pappas responded, “Well, I don’t care what the governor does because that wasn’t part of our arrangement.

Our arrangement was to get it through both Houses and you agreed to pay. Now we have commitments to meet and we would like to have the money.” Lauwereins said he would check into it and let Pete Pappas know. On August 8, 1972, House Bill 4176, the cement bill, was vetoed by Governor Ogilvie. On that day the $50,000 was still in the safe deposit box.

On August 14, 1972, during a tugboat ride in conjunction with an MVLC meeting, Course told Carpentier that some of Course’s fellows were “getting restless,” and Carpentier replied, “I will talk it over with Representative Pappas, because he is handling it.” Also, in August 1972 after the veto, McBride told Wille that Senator Course had called McBride and had asked McBride for his campaign contribution. McBride told Wille that McBride had told Course that McBride did not know anything about it. Lauwereins also called Wille about the same time.

Lauwereins said that he had received some information that “some of the legislators felt they had done their job and that even though the bill had been vetoed and it had not become law, that they should be entitled to some money.” Wille asked Lauwereins, “What about our earlier ‘no bill, no pay’ provision?” Lauwereins replied that that was the earlier agreement. At a luncheon meeting among Wille, McBride, and Lauwereins at a restaurant in Hillside, Illinois, in the latter part of August 1972, McBride told Lauwereins of the phone conversation McBride had had with Course.

McBride went on to say that he had had a recent conversation with Peter V. Pappas and that the legislators felt that they had done their job and although the earlier agreement was $50,000 they were willing to settle for $30,000. McBride stated that before it was decided not to pay anything the industry should consider the consequences of a veto override or an additional seasonal or permit bill. McBride also said that Peter V. Pappas had said he could draw up an additional bill, a seasonal or permit bill, for an additional fee of $5,000.

Wille stated that they could not spend any of the money that had been collected because of their representations to the other ready-mix dealers that it was “no bill, no pay.” Lauwereins concurred. Wille, the following morning, informed Moeller of McBride’s comments. Moeller agreed that the $30,000 should not be taken from the $50,000 fund, but that the $30,000 should come from the two companies that had the most trucks in the industry, Meyer Material Company and Material Service Corporation.

At a motel in Des Plaines, Illinois, McBride, Lauwereins, Moeller, Wille and Gerald Nagel of Material Service Corporation met in early September 1972. Lauwereins told Nagel and Moeller that the legislators felt they were entitled to $30,000 instead of the original $50,000 and that Peter V. Pappas could draw up a seasonal or permit bill for an additional $5,000. Nagel and Moeller both asked what happened to the original no bill, no-pay agreement. McBride could not answer that question, but said that Nagel and Moeller should consider what the consequences might be if they chose not to do anything.

McBride also said that it was possible that there could be a veto override and that Moeller and Nagel should consider what should be done. Lauwereins and Wille said that they, themselves, could not make the decision. Moeller said “the $30,000 should be put up and it should be contributed by Meyer Material and Material Service Corporation.” Nagel concurred. On the evening of September 11, 1972, following the MVLC meeting Peter V. Pap-pas told Craig, Carpentier and Pete Pappas that the industry was not going to pay anything for the passage of the bill because the Governor had vetoed it.

Pete Pappas then said, “That was not our deal. We had a commitment; they were going to pay us if it passed both Houses. We had no control over what the Governor did.” Pete Pappas went on to say, “We have commitments that we have to meet; they should at least pay us enough so we could meet our commitments.” There was a general discussion about the amount of money necessary to fulfill commitments.

Craig said that he thought that he could take care of his commitments for “five.” Pete Pappas and Carpentier agreed that if Craig could take care of his commitments for $5,000, they could take care of their commitments for the same amount. Peter V. Pappas said that he would talk to the industry and get back to them. In September 1972, Lauwereins telephoned Wille and asked Wille to take Meyer Material Company’s half of the $30,000 to McBride’s house in Westchester.

Wille told Moeller about Lauwereins’ phone call requesting Wille to take the money to McBride’s house, and asked Moeller to have the money ready when Wille ’needed it. Moeller said he would. Around the end of September, Wille received $15,000 in $100 bill denominations in an envelope from Moeller. That same day Wille went to McBride’s house in Westchester. Lauwereins and Wille arrived at McBride’s house at about the same time. They proceeded to the basement of the house where they met McBride and Peter V. Pappas. Wille and Lauwereins both placed envelopes containing cash on a table. Peter V.

Pappas removed the contents of both envelopes and counted the money. The envelope Wille had brought contained $15,000. The envelope Lauwereins had placed on the table contained $14,100, $900 short of the $15,000 amount. McBride told Peter V. Pappas that McBride would get the missing $900 to Peter V. Pappas at a later date. Peter V. Pappas then put the money back in the envelopes and put the envelopes in his brief case. Peter V. Pap-pas said that he had to make a stop on the way down to Springfield. Peter V.

Pappas also stated, “Five years ago when a man told you you had his vote, you could count on it; today you have to wait to see if he punches the button and the light lights up' to know for sure.” Peter V. Pappas in September 1972, delivered $5,000 in cash in an envelope to Course which Course then delivered to various Democratic state senators. On September 25, 1972, Peter V. Pappas met Pete Pappas, Carpentier and North at the Coffeehouse on Interstate 80 near Marseilles, Illinois and delivered $10,000 in cash in an envelope to Pete Pappas. About a week before that meeting, Peter V.

Pappas told Pete Pappas by phone that he (Peter V. Pappas) had the money and wanted to set up a meeting with Pete Pap-pas to deliver it. Peter V. Pappas mentioned a date that he was going to Springfield. Pete Pappas replied “Well, that date is all right with me. Why don’t we meet at the Coffeehouse, which is on Interstate 80 and it would be on your left side as you are driving down Interstate 80.” The meeting was set for 10:00 o’clock in the morning. Immediately after the phone conversation with Peter V.

Pappas, Pete Pappas telephoned Carpentier and said, “Donnie, I just had a call from Peter V. and he has the money and he wants to meet us at the Coffeehouse on Interstate 80 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning” on the date agreed upon. Pete Pappas asked Carpentier if Carpentier could make it. Carpentier said he could, and would ride up with Pete Pap-pas. Pete Pappas told North by phone of the phone call from Peter V. Pappas. Pete Pappas told North that if North could make the meeting at the Coffeehouse, Pete Pap-pas would have something for him. North said that he thought he could.

Pete Pappas said “Okay, fine.” Pete Pappas met Carpentier the morning of September 25,1972 at the Moline Airport and drove to the Coffeehouse on Interstate 80 near Marseilles, Illinois. When Pete Pappas and Carpentier arrived at the Coffeehouse that morning North was already there. North, Carpentier and Pete Pappas had a cup of coffee while they were waiting for Peter V. Pappas to arrive. After waiting approximately twenty-five monutes, Carpentier placed a phone call to Peter V. Pappas’ home in Lake Bluff and was told that Peter V. Pappas had left for Spring-field. Another twenty minutes passed before Peter V.

Pappas arrived and entered the Coffeehouse. When Peter V. Pappas arrived at the Coffeehouse, he had a cup of coffee and asked Carpentier to call Peter V. Pappas’ office in Springfield. Carpentier obliged. While Carpentier was on the phone North, Pete Pappas and Peter V. Pappas left the Coffeehouse. Pete Pappas and Peter V. Pappas, upon leaving the restaurant, got into Peter V. Pappas’ car. Peter V. Pappas sat behind the wheel and Pete Pappas sat on the passenger side. North walked out into the parking lot away from the car. In the car, Peter V.

Pappas placed an envelope on the front seat of the car and said “Now, if anybody asked you if I gave you any money you say I didn’t.” Pete Pappas picked up the envelope containing the money from the seat and put it in his coat pocket. Peter V. Pappas said that he had already given Course his “five” and that he was going to see Craig later in Springfield. Pete Pappas got out of Peter V. Pappas’ car with the envelope, went over to his own car and got in. Pete Pappas then opened the envelope and counted out ten $100 bills. Pete Pappas got out of his car, walked over to North and gave North the ten $100 bills.

North and Pete Pappas discussed having lunch at the LaSalle Holiday Inn and North got in his car and left. When Carpentier joined Pete Pappas, Pete Pappas requested Carpentier to drive the car, which Carpentier did. During the ride from the Coffeehouse to the LaSalle Holiday Inn on Interstate 80, Pete Pappas counted out $5,000 in $100 bills and handed it to Carpentier. Carpentier put the money into his inside coat pocket. North, Carpentier and Pete Pappas had lunch together at the LaSalle Holiday Inn. Carpentier and Pete Pappas arrived back in Rock Island about 3:30 p. m. that day.

Carpentier then went to his insurance office in Moline and put the $5,000 he had received from Pete Pappas in a file box which he then put in a file drawer in the office. A few days later, Carpentier had his wife type nine envelopes addressed to nine Republican senators, including an envelope addressed to Walker. The addresses were obtained from the legislative handbook. In the envelope addressed to Walker, Carpentier put five $100 bills wrapped in a piece of paper. Carpentier placed a $100 bill in each of the other eight envelopes.

Carpentier then took the nine envelopes which had proper postage and deposited them in the mail box by the side of the front door of his office. On the morning of November 4, 1972, Pete Pappas, Course and Peter V. Pappas met with ready-mix industry members Wille, McBride, Lauwereins, and Herbert Craig for breakfast at a restaurant in Springfield. At that meeting there was a discussion whether a veto override of House Bill 4176 should be attempted.

Course stated near the end of the meeting that an override was impossible since there were not enough votes, and Pete Pappas stated that he felt it would be better if an override of the Governor’s veto was not attempted, but that a new bill could be pursued in the next session. In the latter part of December 1972, Connolly and Peter V. Pappas returned to the bank in Lake Bluff and retrieved the $50,-000 from the safe deposit box. Connolly took the money and returned portions of it to Wille, Lauwereins and Arquilla. Connolly kept the $3,160 which Meyer Material advanced to the $50,000 fund.

Connolly placed the cash in the NIRMMA office safe, where it remained until trial. After the commencement of the grand jury investigation which led to the indictment in this case, Carpentier was served with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury on May 30, 1973. On May 29, 1973, Carpentier informed Peter V. Pappas and Course of the receipt of the subpoena and was told by Peter V.

Pappas, “Deny everything and if we all stick together, they won’t have any case and when you get finished, call me in my office in Spring-field.” Carpentier appeared before the grand jury on May 30, 1973, and after his grand jury appearance called Peter V. Pap-pas. Carpentier told Peter V. Pappas that he (Carpentier) had denied everything before the grand jury and Peter V. Pappas said, “Great, if we all stick together like that, we will have no problem.” In August of 1973, Craig telephoned Pete Pappas and arranged a meeting with Pete Pappas at the Streid’s Restaurant in Bloomington, Illinois.

In attendance at the meeting were Craig, Peter V. Pappas, Pete Pap-pas and Lou Markert, a former legislator. Markert left the meeting at Peter V. Pap-pas’ request. After Markert left, Peter V. Pappas told Craig and Pete Pappas that Peter V. Pappas had been visited at his home in Lake Bluff by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Skinner and Stone, who had discussed the cement bill legislation. Peter V. Pappas told Craig and Pete Pappas that he, Peter V. Pappas, could do one of three things in regard to the investigation. Peter V.

Pappas said that he could say that he “ratholed” all the money, in other words, that he had got the money but kept it and did not pass any of it on. Peter V. Pappas said that another thing he could do was to tell the government everything he knew about it, and the other thing was not admit anything. Peter V. Pappas said that because he was being called to the grand jury, he would probably need to hire an attorney. He asked Craig and Pete Pappas if they would give him $5,000 apiece to help him pay his legal expenses. Peter V.

Pappas also asked Craig and Pete Pappas to contact the other two participants and see if money could be obtained from them also. Peter V. Pappas said that he had been talking to Material Service Corporation but they had dropped him and were not going to help him in any way. Peter V. Pappas said that he heard that some of the executives of Material Service Corporation had received immunity on the case. Also in the fall of 1973, Peter V.

Pappas telephoned Carpentier and said, “that if the fellows would come up with $5,000 apiece, he would amend his tax return showing that he took $20,000 and we would all be off the hook.” Neither Pete Pappas nor Carpentier ever gave Peter V. Pappas the $5,000 that Peter V. Pappas had requested. II. ISSUES AS TO RECORDED CONVERSATIONS All four appellants raised issues with respect to the conversations recorded by Carpentier and Pete Pappas. Prior to trial, defendants Craig, Walker, and Peter V. Pappas moved the district court to suppress those tape recorded conversations.

Following a hearing, the district court denied their motion. It appears from the record that defendant Carpentier had been called to testify before the grand jury investigating this case on two occasions, once in May and once in June (or July), 1973. In December of 1973 Carpentier engaged an attorney who conducted negotiations with the prosecution. By a letter agreement dated March 5, 1974, Carpentier agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of the impending indictment and to cooperate fully in the investigation in this case.

The government, in return, agreed to dismiss other counts pertaining to Carpentier and to bring to the sentencing judge’s attention Carpentier’s cooperation with the government. Thereafter, around the first of June, 1974, Carpentier permitted postal inspectors to attach a tape recording device to his office telephone. On June 10, defendant Walker telephoned Carpentier at his office. The conversation was recorded. Carpentier then immediately called Assistant United States Attorney Skinner to inform him of the call.

Skinner told Carpentier to place a call to Walker, admonishing Carpentier not to disclose the fact that he was a government informant and to try to talk about money he had given Walker and to let Walker talk. Carpentier complied, and a second conversation between Carpentier and Walker was recorded. A third conversation was recorded on July 11, 1974. The record reveals that prior to any recordings, the government was aware that Walker had retained counsel.

Walker contends that the tapes of conversations recorded by Carpentier between himself and Carpentier should have been suppressed, and that the admission of the tapes into evidence at trial constituted error. In this regard, Walker argues that the government activity which resulted in the recording of his telephone conversations constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment, a denial of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

We note at the outset the well-settled principle that there is no interest protectible by the Fourth Amendment in those situations in which one party to a conversation reposes a trust or confidence in the other party who is actually an undisclosed government agent or informant. E. g., Haifa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966).

Simply put, no legitimate Fourth Amendment interest is involved in such situations, for that Amendment affords no protection to “a wrongdoer’s misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.” Id. at 302, 87 S.Ct. at 413. Nor is the Fourth Amendment violated because the undisclosed agent simultaneously records the conversation with an electronic recording device on his person, Lopez v.

United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963), or because the conversation is electronically transmitted by the undisclosed agent to a remote place where it is overheard by other agents and/or recorded. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270 (1952). Evidence in the form of tape recordings of such conversations are generally admissible where one party to the conversation consents to the electronic recording. Rathbun v.

United States, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S.Ct. 161, 2 L.Ed.2d 134 (1957); United States v. Bastone, 526 F.2d 971 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 2172, 48 L.Ed.2d 797 (1976); United States v. Martin, 372 F.2d 63 (7th Cir. 1967); cert. denied, 387 U.S. 919, 87 S.Ct. 2033, 18 L.Ed.2d 972 (1967). There is no doubt from the record that Carpentier voluntarily consented to the recording of his conversations with Walker. Further, Walker’s contention that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated since he should have been made aware of his rights prior to making any statement is of no avail.

Advice of rights is required in custodial situations where the inherent pressures to speak in the face of governmental authority are present. Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1; United States v. Gardner, 516 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 118, 46 L.Ed.2d 89 (1975). As Judge Bauer stated in United States v. Bastone, supra, 526 F.2d at 977: “A person is not entitled to warnings simply because an investigation has focused upon him. The test is not focus alone, but rather, focus plus custodial interrogation. Escobedo v.

Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).” While it is clear the investigation had focused upon defendant Walker, his recorded conversations with Carpentier involved no confrontation with governmental authority in the context of a custodial interrogation calling for Miranda warnings. Consequently, we must reject Walker’s contention that the recordings violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Nor did the recordings violate Walker’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

By its own terms, the Sixth Amendment affords the right of counsel “[i]n all criminal prosecutions.” For purely Sixth Amendment purposes, a defendant’s right to counsel attaches only at or after the time the adversary judicial proceeding has been initiated against him. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1971) (plurality opinion of Stewart, J.); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199,12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). See also: Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977).

One accused of a crime is said to be entitled to counsel at any “critical” stage of the prosecution. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 236, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). Walker’s right to counsel argument must fail for the simple reason that there had not yet been a “criminal prosecution” when his conversations with Carpentier were recorded.

Nevertheless, Walker argues that at the time of the recorded conversations the government was no longer simply investigating him.

Walker asserts that because Carpentier would testify that he had bribed Walker and because other witnesses would provide evidence needed to establish other elements of the scheme, his indictment “was then as certain as the sun setting in the West and that it was being deferred merely to permit the government to beef up its case with admissions to be obtained by stealth and trickery.” Walker concludes by stating that “the indictment was being withheld, perhaps with the conscious purpose of avoiding any right to counsel problems.” The record does not support Walker’s contentions.

Nothing therein indicates that the government withheld the indictment for any purpose whatsoever. Furthermore, in an investigation into a complex scheme involving as many persons, occurring in as many places, and carried on as long as the scheme established by the government in this case, we are compelled to reject Walker’s unadorned contention that his formal charge was withheld for the purposes asserted here.

In any event, the government is certainly not required to cease an on-going investigation into a far-reaching scheme such as this when it appears to have probable cause to seek an indictment as to one individual. Cf. Hoffa v. United States, supra; United States v. Gardner, supra; United States v. Skelley, 501 F.2d 447 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1051, 95 S.Ct. 629, 42 L.Ed.2d 647 (1974).

Recognizing that his individual claimed violations of Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights alone are insufficient to warrant reversal, Walker submits that the totality of the circumstances in this case requires us to hold that the government activity exceeded permissible bounds. We reject Walker’s totality of the circumstances argument because, for the reasons stated with respect to the individual claimed violation of rights, we find no support in the record for the assertion that the activity of the government exceeded permissible bounds.

However damning the effect of the tape recordings upon Walker’s case, we find nothing in the record to indicate that his rights were violated by the recordings of conversations with Carpentier, or the admission into evidence of those recordings. Defendant Peter V. Pappas also contends that tapes of conversations between himself and Pete Pappas on September 27, 1973 and October 15, 1973 should have been suppressed. The tape recordings of those conversations were inadmissible, Peter V.

Pappas argues, because Pete Pap-pas was neither acting under color of law nor had given prior consent to the interception of their conversations within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). The record shows that on October 17, 1973, Pete Pappas and the government entered into a letter agreement by which Pete Pappas agreed to enter a plea of guilty to a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) [making a false statement in an income tax return], to cooperate fully with the government in its investigation, to not run for re-election as a State Representative, and to resign from office prior to testifying at trial.

In return, the government agreed not to prosecute Pete Pappas any further, not to use any information he supplied against him in any way, and to recommend probation at the time of sentencing. Peter V. Pappas argues that Pete Pappas’ recordings of two conversations prior to entering into the plea agreement were accomplished for purely selfish purposes designed to increase his (Pete Pappas’) value to the government as a witness. In support of this argument, Peter V.

Pappas points outs that Pete Pappas, through his attorney, offered to tape the conversations, and that the government could not use the tapes unless and until it had reached an agreement with Pete Pappas. As such Peter V. Pappas concludes, Pete Pappas was not acting “under color of law.” We do not agree. Our review of the record indicates that Pete Pappas agreed to cooperate with the government prior to recording any conversations with Peter V. Pappas. Pete Pappas’ attorney suggested the recordings during the course of plea negotiations because Peter V.

Pappas had been demanding money from Pete Pappas for use as attorney’s fees, and the attorney was concerned that by giving Peter V. Pappas money, Pete Pappas might become involved in “an obstruction of justice situation” if it later turned out that the money was not for attorney’s fees but rather for use as an encouragement not to testify. The prosecutor, then Assistant United States Attorney Skinner, agreed that if plea negotiations with Pete Pappas fell through, there would be no use of the recorded material against Pete Pappas.

Every aspect of the recording of the conversations on September 27 and October 15 was supervised by the government. Pete Pappas only taped those conversations which the government directed him to record. The government supplied the recording equipment and an agent who operated the equipment. The agent remained nearby until Pete Pappas had finished recording. After each recording, the agent took custody of the equipment and the original tapes.

Under our view of the record, whatever may have been Pete Pappas’ motive in cooperating with the government, he was “acting under color of law” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). Peter V. Pappas also contends that Pete Pappas had not given his prior consent to the recording of the conversations to which he was a party. In this regard, Peter V. Pappas argues that prior to the written agreement of October 17, 1973, the government was precluded from using the tapes of any of Pete Pappas’ recorded conversations against him because, prior to that date, the government did not have Pete Pappas’ consent.

In substance, Peter V. Pappas argues that Pete Pappas withheld his consent to the interception of the conversations to which he was a party until the date of the written agreement. We reject this argument because it is not supported by the record, and, further, because it assumes that there can be no valid prior consent under these circumstances until there is a formal plea agreement. We find no support, and Peter V. Pappas had demonstrated none, for such an assumption. It is clear from the record that Pete Pappas gave his prior consent to the interception and recording of the conversations.

Defendant Craig also contends that the district court erred in denying the pre-trial motion to suppress evidence in the form of tape recordings of conversations made by Pete Pappas in which Craig was a participant. Craig argues that Pete Pappas was instructed by the government to elicit confessions of culpability in past events by indulgence in cajolery, mutual sympathy, and false pretenses. Further, Craig points out that as far as the September 27, 1973 conversation was concerned, Pete Pappas’ mission was to tape only a conversation with Peter V. Pappas.

Under such circumstances, Craig argues, Pete Pappas was obliged to advise Craig of his true function as a government agent, and that the government cannot rely on 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). We find no merit to Craig’s attempted distinction between culpable statements contained in recorded conversations occurring during the commission of an offense, and such statements occurring after the commission of an offense. The indictment charged, and the evidence showed, a conspiracy among the defendants and various unindicted co-schemers (among whom was Pete Pappas) occurring over an extended period of time.

The recordings of which Craig complains were made during the existence of the alleged and proven conspiracy. Furthermore, Craig voluntarily participated in the conversations, albeit without knowledge of Pete Pappas’ true function as an individual cooperating with the government in its investigation.

At the time of the recorded conversations, Pete Pappas’ trustworthiness and confidentiality were characteristics which Craig necessarily risked, and Craig cannot be heard to complain when it is afterwards learned that Pete Pappas actually had been a government informant and evidence of damaging conversations are later introduced at trial. See, e. g., Hoffa v. United States, supra; United States v. White, supra; United States v. Lemonakis, supra.

Craig further contends that the tapes of his conversations should not have been admitted into evidence “for want of preserving their integrity.” In substance, Craig argues that no chain of custody of the tape recordings was proven at trial. Specifically, Craig complains of the admission into evidence of tapes of conversations occurring between himself and Pete Pappas on September 27, 1973 and October 23, 1973. The record shows that government exhibit 101-0 and 103-0 purported to be the original tape recordings of the September 27, 1973 and October 23, 1973 conversations respectively.

Pete Pappas testified that immediately prior to his September 27 meeting with Craig and Peter V. Pappas at a hotel in Chicago, he went to the room of Postal Inspector D’Hooge in the same hotel, where D’Hooge outfitted him with a tape recorder. After departing D’Hooge’s room, Pete Pappas proceeded to an area of the hotel where he conversed with Craig and Peter V. Pappas. The conversation was recorded by Pete Pappas who, immediately after the conversation, returned to D’Hooge’s room where the tape recorder was removed from his person. D’Hooge kept the tape.

Pete Pappas further testified that almost two-and-one-half years later, on February 7, 1976, he listened to the tape recording of the September 27, 1973 conversation (government exhibit 101-0), recognized and identified his voice as well as the voices of Craig and Peter V. Pappas, and noted that some parts of the tape were unintelligible. Pete Pappas stated that the tape recordings truly and accurately portrayed the conversations in which he had participated on September 27, 1973. He also testified that a typed transcript of the tape recording was a true and. accurate transcript.

Pete Pap-pas testified" similarly with respect to the tape recording of the October 23 conversation (government exhibit 103-0) and other conversations he recorded (government exhibits 102-0 and 104-0). The next witness with respect to the tapes was Professor Weiss, who was qualified and accepted by the district court as an expert.

Weiss testified that Postal Inspectors D’Hooge and Kelm visited his New York offices in March, 1976, with the tapes in question, that he subjected the tapes to scientific analysis for purposes of determining the existence of splices or alterations, and that, in his opinion, the tapes contained “no indication of alteration whatsoever.” Weiss further testified that he made two identical copies of the tapes on sophisticated, high quality machines.

Weiss improved the audibility of those copies by removing background noises, etc. — “a procedure to make the sound of speech closer to that which you would have obtained using a more ideal recording situation.” Weiss kept one copy of each tape for himself, and placed the other copies in sealed bags, signing the seal on each bag. Weiss then handed the sealed recordings to the Postal Inspectors. These copies were subsequently numbered government exhibits 101-1, 102-1, etc. corresponding to the original “-0” series, and Weiss stated from the witness stand that none of these exhibits had been tampered with.

Weiss further testified that later (May, 1976), at the direction of representatives of the government, he deleted certain portions of the “-1” tapes. These tapes were then labelled 101-3, 102-3, etc. Transcripts corresponding to the “-3” series were labelled 101A, 102A, etc. The district court found that a proper foundation had been established for the “-3” tapes with the deletions and enhanced audibility and admitted those tapes into evidence and allowed them to be played for the jury. No chain of custody of the tapes was proven at trial.

Notwithstanding this lack of proof, however, we feel that the tapes were admissible because a proper foundation had been demonstrated. The purpose of the chain of custody rule is to insure that the item offered into evidence is in substantially the same condition as it was at the time the proponent of the evidence came into its possession. Cf. United States v. Santiago, 534 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Brown, 482 F.2d 1226 (8th Cir. 1973). The purpose of the rule is served where, as here, a proper foundation demonstrating the accuracy and trustworthiness of the evidence is laid.

Pete Pappas testified that he participated in the taped conversations, and that the tapes truly and accurately portrayed the conversations in which he participated. Further, the expert witness Weiss testified that in his opinion the tapes contained no alterations. The district court was satisfied that a proper foundation had been established for the admissibility of the tapes. We agree that there was sufficient evidence that the tape recordings were authentic. On the basis of the record before us we cannot say that that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the tapes into evidence.

See United States v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Cosby, 500 F.2d 405 (9th Cir. 1974); Monroe v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 234 F.2d 49 (1956); Todisco v. United States, 298 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1961). This case is thus markedly different from United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112 (3rd Cir. 1975), on which Craig relies.

In the Starks case the government relied on a presumption that when evidence of a physical nature has been introduced, the trial court is entitled to assume that public officials did not tamper with exhibits in their possession in the absence of some evidence suggesting otherwise. The court there held that “when a colorable attack is made as to a tape’s authenticity and accuracy, the burden on those issues shifts to the party offering the tape and the better rule requires that party to prove its chain of custody.” Id., 515 F.2d at 122.

The court further held that it was error for the trial court to shift to defendant the burden of proving unauthenticity. Id. In the instant case, the government did not rely on any presumption of regularity, but rather affirmatively demonstrated the accuracy of the recordings and the absence of any tampering. Craig also contends that the tapes were inadmissible because their chain of custody was not effectuated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a). Craig argues that although consensual recordings of conversations under color of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(

c) may be an exception to court approved interception as established by 18 U.S.C. § 2518, Congress intended the guarantees of integrity found in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(

a) to be made applicable to consensual recordings. Craig, however, points to nothing in the legislative history of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub.L. 90-351, 84 Stat. 212, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. to support this contention. Indeed, our research reveals that Congress was primarily concerned with the intrusions into privacy caused by “the widespread use and abuse of electronic surveillance techniques.” S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. reprinted in 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 2112, 2154 (1968).

Section 802 of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2518, was enacted to delineate “on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized.” Id., at 2153. But consensual interceptions were specifically exempted from those interceptions which would otherwise be unlawful for failure to comply with the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Congress created this exception largely because it “largely reflects existing law.” Id., p. 2182.

Since consensual interceptions are significantly different from non-consensual interceptions, and since nothing in the Act or its legislative history indicates that the recordings of consensual interceptions were intended by Congress to be subject to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a), we reject Craig’s contention. Craig also contends that reversal of his conviction is required because the court reporter did not transcribe the conversations contained on the tape recordings played for the jury in violation of the Court Reporters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 753(b).

Pointing to authorities holding that the requirements of the Act are mandatory, Craig argues that the dispute below was “what was heard in the court.” (Reply Br. of Defendant Appellant Craig, p. 21). We find no merit in this contention. The tape recordings played to the jury and the transcript of those recordings are part of the record on appeal to this Court. Thus, we have the most accurate record of what was heard by the jury, and the fact that the court reporter did not transcribe the contents of the tape recordings in no way impedes our review of the proceedings below.

Because the tape recordings played to the jury are part of the record on appeal, we find substantial compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). Defendant North’s contention with respect to the tapes is of a different nature. North argues that the district court erred in not granting him a severance from the other defendants based upon the government’s use of recordings and transcripts which contained deletions. North asserts that if he had been tried alone, the tapes would have been inadmissible. North was neither mentioned in the tapes nor was a conversation in which he participated recorded.

It is well established that a severance should not be granted except for the most cogent of reasons. E. g., United States v. Crouch, 528 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1976). Essential to a successful motion for severance is the strong showing of prejudice as a result of its denial. United States v. Cervantes, 466 F.2d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 1972). Prejudice, as required for severance, means that the movant will be unable to secure a fair trial unless the severance is granted. A showing that a separate trial will offer a better chance of acquittal is plainly inadequate. United States v. Blue, 440 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1971).

In attempting to make the requisite strong showing of prejudice, North argues, as he did below, that any deletion from the sound recordings would create an unmistakable inference in the minds of the jurors that something very damaging to him had been suppressed. We cannot agree with this argument. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the Bruton excisions created any inference in the minds of the jurors.

To the contrary, the district court instructed the jury both at the time the tapes were played and immediately pri- or to its deliberation that the taped conversations were to be considered only against participants in those conversations. Moreover, the court also instructed the jury at the time the tapes were played to disregard the excisions. Having failed to demonstrate that the denial of this severance request resulted in any prejudice, we reject North’s contention. III. ISSUES AS TO MAIL FRAUD Defendants Craig, Peter V.

Pappas, and Walker contend that the evidence tending to prove the mailings alleged in the indictment was legally insufficient to support their convictions for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The indictment charged eleven mailings, one in each of Counts Two through Twelve. The mailing alleged in the indictment and proven by the government at trial consists of the following: Counts Two to Five — Notices and Agenda of MVLC Meetings of December 1971 and January 1972, mailed by the MVLC Secretary to McBride and Connolly.

Counts Six and Seven — Dues Abatement letters from NIRMMA to Edmier, Inc. and Accurate Ready-Mix. Counts Eight and Nine —Fraudulent Expense Vouchers mailed by Arquilla and Lauwereins to NIR-MMA for purposes of covering a $3160 shortage in the bribe fund. Counts Ten and Eleven —Bulletins from ID-MRCA and NIRMMA urging members to contact the Governor to urge him to sign House Bill 4176. Count Twelve — $500 cash Dayoff from Carpentier to Walker. Our inquiry begins with Pereira v.

United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 362, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954): “The elements of the offense of mail fraud . . are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme. It is not necessary that the scheme contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element. United States v. Young, 232 U.S. 155, 34 S.Ct. 303, 58 L.Ed. 548 To support a conviction for mail fraud, the mailings must be closely enough related to the fraudulent scheme. See Ohrynowicz v. United States, 542 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Britzman, 542 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1977).

In determining the relationship between the mailings and the fraudulent scheme, our inquiry concerns whether the uses of the mails that were charged in the indictment and shown by the evidence properly may be said to have been for the purpose of executing the scheme within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. See United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 400, 94 S.Ct. 645, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974); United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 76, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962); Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 385, 80 S.Ct. 1171, 4 L.Ed.2d 1277 (1960).

The mailings charged and proven in Counts Two through Five consisted of notices and agenda of the December, 1971 and January, 1972 meetings of the MVLC. These notices were mailed to ready-mix industry representatives McBride and Connolly by the MVLC secretary, who addressed the notices from a mailing list. Connolly, the Executive Secretary of NIRMMA, had requested that NIRMMA be placed on the mailing list. Both Connolly and McBride were charged as and shown to be co-schemers with the defendants.

The government’s evidence established that the defendants and co-schemers/co-conspirators conspired to devise a bribery scheme by which the citizens and honest legislators of Illinois would be deprived of their right to honest government. The object of the scheme was the passage of a law through the Illinois Assembly giving highway weight relief for ready-mix industry cement trucks. The record shows that the MVLC was the body which initially reviewed the proposed weight relief legislation and made recommendations to the General Assembly.

Thus, the introduction in the MVLC of what eventually became the “cement bill” was a strategic and essential step, envisioned, planned and carried out by the co-schemers. The mailings of the notices of meetings of the MVLC to NIRMMA representatives, upon the request of Connolly, served to keep the industry co-schemers advised as to the status of their sought-after legislation. The record shows that after the receipt of the notices, the schemers met to prepare their presentation in support of the proposed change in the truck weight limitations law.

We conclude that the introduction of the “cement” bill in the MVLC, among whose membership included Pete Pappas, Course, and Carpentier, was an essential part of the scheme. We further conclude that the mailings of the notices of the MVLC meetings to names on the mailing list maintained by the secretary were incidental to that essential part of the scheme. Cf. Pereira v. United States, supra. The MVLC notices were requested by Connolly of NIRMMA to keep the industry co-schemers apprised of MVLC developments with respect to the “cement bill” proposal.

With such information acquired through the mail, the industry schemers’ actions could be planned accordingly. Although it is clear that not all of those charged with participating in the scheme knew that the notices would be mailed to persons on the MVLC mailing list in the ordinary course of the MVLC’s business, those who were not aware of the mailings are nevertheless responsible for the mailings caused by other members of the scheme in its furtherance. United States v. Joyce, 499 F.2d 9 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1031, 95 S.Ct. 512, 42 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974); United States v.

Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Kerner v. United States, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3183, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974); United States v. Keane, 522 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 976, 96 S.Ct. 1481, 47 L.Ed.2d 746 (1976). Because the mailings represented in Counts Two through Five were incidental to an essential part of the overall scheme, and because the mailings furthered the execution of the scheme, the mailings of the MVLC notices are significantly different from the mailings found to be legally insufficient in Parr v. United States, supra, and United States v.

Staszcuk, 502 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837, 96 S.Ct. 65,46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975), both of which cases are relied upon by defendants. Parr was a prosecution of school board officials for misappropriation of school tax funds. The Supreme Court held under the circumstances of that case that the legally compelled use of the mails by defendant to send tax assessments, receipts, and notices of reassessment hearings was not shown to be in furtherance of the scheme. Parr, supra, 363 U.S. at 391, 80 S.Ct. 1171.

In Staszcuk, the defendant city alderman was convicted, inter alia, of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 in requiring payments for his approval of zoning changes. The mailings charged to be in furtherance of the scheme consisted of notices of hearings sent by a zoning committee of the City Council to occupants of buildings near the property which was subject to the proposed zoning amendment. We concluded that the mailings charged and proven by the government conflicted with rather than promoted the defendant’s scheme to defraud, and, hence, were not in furtherance of the scheme. Staszeuk, supra, 502 F.2d at 880-881.

Parr and Staszeuk are inapplicable here. The MVLC mailings were directed to those co-schemers who had asked to be placed on the mailing list. The notices served to inform the recipients of the status of their sought-after proposal in the MVLC so that the steps necessary to secure its passage could be taken. We feel that the mailings of the MVLC notices to McBride and Connolly were closely enough related to and promoted the fraudulent scheme. As such, Connolly caused the mailings of the notices for purposes of executing the fraudulent scheme.

The mailings involved in Counts Six and Seven consist of letters from NIRMMA to its members advising them of a suspension of dues. The evidence showed that at the NIRMMA convention in Miami in February, 1972, it was proposed that member companies be assessed $40.00 per truck as their contribution to the $50,000 bribe fund. At a subsequent NIRMMA Transportation Committee meeting, this plan was agreed upon and carried out. In March, 1972, the NIRMMA Board of Directors decided to abate the dues of member firms and mailed letters so informing the members of that decision.

As Craig allows, the record indicates that the “reason for these letters was to soften the blow occasioned by the assessment to make up the $50,000.00 fund.” (Brief of Defendant Craig, p. 20). The record shows that Accurate Ready-Mix Concrete Company (Count Six) and Edmier, Inc. (Count Seven) received these letters through the mail. The mailings which formed the basis for Counts Eight and Nine consist of false expense vouchers mailed by Arquilla and Lauwereins to the NIRMMA office.

When the $50,000.00 bribe purse was assembled in the NIRMMA office in March, 1972, Meyer Material advanced $3160.00 to cover a shortage. False expense vouchers were then submitted to NIRMMA. Connolly prepared checks to pay the false expense vouchers. When cashed, Connolly reimbursed Meyer Material for the $3160.00. It is clear from the record that the collection of the $50,000.00 bribery fund was an essential part of the scheme, and that the mailings charged in Counts Six through Nine were done as incidental aspects of the task of assembling the fund.

Because the collection of the bribe fund was an essential part of the scheme, and because the mailings charged in Counts Six through Nine were incidental to that essential aspect of the scheme, Cf. Pereira v. United States, supra, 347 U.S. at 8, 74 S.Ct. 358, we conclude that those mailings were done for purposes of executing the scheme to defraud, and, as such were sufficient to support convictions for mail fraud. Craig argues that the mailings of the false expense vouchers (Counts Eight and Nine) constituted an entirely different fraud perpetrated against NIRMMA.

Craig claims that the mailings involved in those fraudulent acts could not have been foreseen by the defendants. We understand this contention to mean that Craig did not cause the use of the mails in Counts Eight and Nine within the meaning of § 1341. But a schemer causes the use of the mails when he has knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, although not actually intended. Pereira v. United States, supra, 347 U.S. at 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358.

Furthermore, each member of a mail fraud scheme is responsible for the use of the mails caused by other members in the execution of the scheme. United States v. Joyce, supra, 499 F.2d 9, 16. Undoubtedly Craig had no concern for the methods utilized by the industry co-schemers in raising the bribe fund, probably never intended. that false expense vouchers would be submitted through the mails to assemble part of the fund, and probably could not foresee such a procedure. The same, however, cannot be said of Craig’s counterparts in the ready-mix industry.

The mailings were clearly caused by them, and the fact that Arcquilla and Lauwereins used the mails to submit false expense vouchers in furtherance of the fund’s collection process was certainly a reasonably foreseeable use of the mail.

Since the industry schemers could reasonably foresee the use of the mails in the execútion of the fund-raising aspect of the scheme, and since the defendants are responsible for such use of the mails by their industry counterparts, defendants must be held responsible for the mailings represented in Counts Eight and Nine. .The mailings charged in Counts Ten and Eleven consist of bulletins mailed by ID-MRCA and NIRMMA directing their respective membership to contact the governor and to urge him to sign the cement bill into law.

Craig argues that the defendants had no contemplation that the possibility of a veto was any part of the scheme and, thus, contemplation of the use of the mails to prevent a veto could hardly have been envisioned or reasonably anticipated. In a similar vein, Peter V. Pappas argues that the mailings in Count Ten and Eleven were not sufficiently related to the scheme because the conspiracy was never alleged to encompass improper influence on the governor. These arguments miss the mark.

At the time of the mailings charged in Counts Ten and Eleven of the indictment, the scheme was on the brink of fruition, at least from the point of view of the industry schemers. It was an essential part of the scheme that the cement bill be enacted into law. As such, the mailings of the bulletin to the members of the NIRMMA and ID-MRCA urging those members to press the governor to sign H.B. 4176 into law were clearly within furtherance of the scheme and properly chargeable to the co-schemer defendants. Count Twelve charges the mailing of five hundred dollars to defendant Walker.

It was shown at trial that Carpentier placed $500.00 in an envelope and mailed it to Walker in fulfillment of their prior agreement that Walker would receive $500.00 for handling the cement bill in the Senate. We have no difficulty in concluding that this distribution of the proceeds of the bribe fund was in furtherance of the scheme. Cf. United States v. Barrett, 505 F.2d 1091, 1104 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 964, 95 S.Ct. 1951, 44 L.Ed.2d 450 (1975); United States v. Isaacs, supra.

With respect to each of the above mailings, which we have found to be in furtherance of the scheme, defendants Craig, Peter V. Pappas, and Walker assert variously that they cannot be said to have caused the mailings, or that they could not have anticipated such use of the mails, or that they had no knowledge of or participation in the mailings. Hence, defendants contend, the evidence of mailings is insufficient to support .a conviction under § 1341. Defendants’ arguments, however, ignore the principle that they do not have to use or personally cause the

[…]