378 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1967), 21062, Good v. United States

Docket Nº:21062.
Citation:378 F.2d 934
Party Name:Erma Jean GOOD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:May 31, 1967
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 934

378 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1967)

Erma Jean GOOD, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21062.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 31, 1967

Page 935

James S. Fitzpatrick, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., Gerald F. Uelmen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, [*] District judge.


Appellant was charged in one count with conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C. § 174 (the selling of narcotics); in count two with aiding and abetting an alleged coconspirator to possess unregistered and taxable narcotics (heroin), 26 U.S.C. § 4724(c); in count three with aiding and abetting an alleged coconspirator in the possession of unregistered and taxable cocaine; in count four with concealing certain marijuana, knowing it to have been imported contrary to law; and in count five with knowingly possessing untaxed marijuana, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a). Appellant was convicted on counts one, four and five. Counts two and three were dismissed by the government at trial. Count five was dismissed by the trial judge after trial. He then sentenced appellant to seven and one-half years on counts one and four, the sentences on each count to run concurrently.

Three errors are alleged:

(1) The admission of certain taped recordings of telephone calls into evidence; (2) the admission of a conversation between the appellant and certain government agents; and (3) the denial of appellant's motion (filed one day before trial) to dismiss her retained counsel.

A. The last alleged error, particularly in view of the time it occurred, was a matter resting peculiarly and entirely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. His action must be sustained by us in the absence of a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Johnson v. United States, 291 F.2d 150, 153 (8th Cir. 1961)

Page 936

, cert. den. 368 U.S. 880, 82 S.Ct. 130, 7 L.Ed.2d 80 (1961). No such showing has been made. Nor is any contention here made, nor could it be made, that appellant was not adequately represented by competent counsel at her trial.

B. The tape recordings were properly admitted into evidence as admissions against interests made by appellant herself. See Murray v. United States, 250 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. den. 357 U.S. 932, 78 S.Ct. 1375, 2 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1958). They were not admitted as a statement of one conspirator admissible against a coconspirator, because they were not made during the course of the conspiracy. The statements were made by appellant some two months prior to the time that she was in custody, and hence Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), are not applicable, irrespective of their lack of retroactivity (Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882(1966)). The recorded conversations were not obtained by coercion. Coconspirator Kelley was given...

To continue reading