457 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1972), 71-2028, United States v. Simmons
|Citation:||457 F.2d 763|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marvin SIMMONS, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 13, 1972|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
E. Mark Himelstein (argued), Tim M. Savinar, of Penrod, Himelstein, Savinar & Sims, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Daniel E. Ahlstrom, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Alan B. Andrews, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.
Before KOELSCH and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CARR, [*] District Judge.
Marvin Simmons was convicted, following a trial to the court, of violating the Dyer Act (18 U.S.C. § 2312). On this appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction, he urges two errors. Neither has merit.
First: The court acted well within its discretion in refusing to permit cross-examination of a government witness concerning the precise location on the automobile of the manufacturer's "secret numbers" to which the witness resorted, in order to identify the vehicle as the one Simmons had stolen. In some circumstances, a limitation on such proposed cross-examination might constitute reversible error; but, as aptly stated in United States v. Williamson, 272 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 920, 80 S.Ct. 672, 4 L.Ed.2d 740, ". . . there is nothing [in this
record] to indicate that the location of the serial number would be material or that by inspection and discovery of the number or the location the testimony of the agent might be impeached."
Second: The same conclusion is warranted with respect to the district court's denial of a continuance, sought on the day of trial, in order to permit Simmons to engage counsel of his own choosing. United States v. Deegan, 428 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP