United States v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 22 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25707.,25707. |
| Citation | 431 F.2d 878 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee, v. Richard C. BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
D. Thompson Slutes, Tucson, Ariz. (argued), of Lesher & Scruggs, Tucson, Ariz., Dudley S. Welker, of Anderson & Welker, Safford, Ariz., for appellant.
James Wilkes (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was charged in Count One with offering a bribe of $100 to two immigration officials on May 26, 1969; and in Count Two with the giving of a bribe of $25 to an immigration official on June 23, 1969.
Appellant was convicted on Count Two and acquitted on Count One. He charges as error that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent; that the government split one crime into two counts improperly, that although this appellant was not in custody he was entitled to a Miranda type warning; and that the government failed to comply with local Rule 42, setting up a dead-line for notice to counsel of defendant's admissions.
While we may compliment appellant's counsel on the able and imaginative manner in which the alleged errors were urged, (a) we find no inconsistency in the two verdicts; (b) the government's charge of two counts was proper (United States v. Michelson, 165 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir.), aff'd 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)); (c) a person is entitled to no warning during the commission of a crime (Grier v. United States, 345 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 1965); Feldstein v. United States, 429 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1970); and (d) Rule 42 expressly provides the trial court may excuse compliance with the rule which it here did.
We affirm the conviction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Finazzo
...statute. United States v. Michaelson, 165 F.2d 732 (2d Cir.), aff'd, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); United States v. Barnes, 431 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1024, 91 S.Ct. 582, 27 L.Ed.2d 637 (1971). Since the conduct is described in the disjunctive, a ......
-
U.S. v. Moore
...but it does not follow that each attempt "to market" his testimony must be considered a single transaction. See United States v. Barnes, 431 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1024, 91 S.Ct. 582, 27 L.Ed.2d 637 (1970); Wilburn v. United States, 326 F.2d 903, 904 (5th Cir. 1964); cf......
-
United States v. Joslyn
...both Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 as well as Local Rule 86. See United States v. Allsenberrie, 424 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1970); United States v. Barnes, 431 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1970) cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1024, 91 S.Ct. 582, 27 L.Ed.2d 637 (1971). The Las Vegas statement was clearly an incriminating one ......
-
United States v. Rebon-Delgado, 71-3015.
...with the rule. See United States v. Acosta-Garcia, 448 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1971) Rule 86 was then numbered Rule 42; United States v. Barnes, 431 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1970). Since the testimony regarding this admission was elicited not by the prosecution but by the trial judge, waiver of the ru......