324 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1963), 18573, Marin v. United States
|Citation:||324 F.2d 66|
|Party Name:||Anibal MARIN, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||October 31, 1963|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Frank C. Morales, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Section, and David R. Nissen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.
BOWEN, District Judge.
This case began in the Trial Court with the return of the grand jury's indictment in four counts, the first two of which were upon the Government's motion dismissed before trial.
As to the remaining Counts 3 and 4, the appellant, Anibal Marin, Jr., pleaded not guilty and was tried, convicted by a jury and sentenced by the Trial Court to five years imprisonment on each of those Counts 3 and 4 with concurrent execution of sentences. Count 3 charged the appellant with unlawfully selling to a named narcotics agent and facilitating the sale of heroin, a narcotic drug, which as appellant well knew had been imported into the United States contrary to law. Count 4 charged the appellant with having unlawfully received, concealed and facilitated the concealment and transportation of the same narcotic drug which as appellant well knew had been imported into the United States contrary to law.
From those sentences appellant now brings this appeal saying that the only question on appeal is whether appellant was unlawfully entrapped by an agent or special employee of the appellee United States respecting appellant's doing the things charged against him in the indictment. In that connection, appellant more specifically contends (1) that such defense of unlawful entrapment was established as a matter of law, and that the Trial Court erred in denying appellant's motion for acquittal at the close of all the evidence, and (2) that the Trial Court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial because the jury did not understand appellant's defense of unlawful entrapment as indicated by their questions addressed to the Trial Judge during the jury's deliberations and the Trial Court improperly instructed the jury respecting unlawful entrapment, and because, as appellant further contends, the appellee's witness, a federal narcotics agent, was impeached.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP