539 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1976), 76-1446, United States v. Gonzales

Docket Nº:76-1446, 76-1492.
Citation:539 F.2d 1238
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Everett GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Charles STINE and Edward Kilpatrick, Defendants-Appellants.
Case Date:July 27, 1976
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1238

539 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1976)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Eddie Everett GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Cecil Charles STINE and Edward Kilpatrick, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 76-1446, 76-1492.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 27, 1976

As Amended Aug. 10, 1976.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 15, 1976.

Page 1239

James P. F. Egbert (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant in No. 76-1446.

Charles P. Stirton (argued), of Laber, Lovallo & Colarich, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant in No. 76-1492.

Christopher Pickrell (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

Before BARNES and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, [*] District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to counterfeit United States currency, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 471; possession of similitudes of United States currency, id. § 474; and executing a print, photograph or impression in the likeness of United States currency, id.

Two government agents, Richardson and Feltman, joined the operation after it had been under way, but prior to any actual printing. The agents were actively involved in purchasing ink and other supplies, as well as a functioning press to replace a defective one previously acquired by the appellants. They also prepared the photostatic negatives and participated in the operation of the press which produced the similitudes. Appellants do not argue that they were entrapped. They concede that they were predisposed to commit the offense; an entrapment defense is therefore foreclosed to them. Hampton v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Gonzales, 537 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1976).

Appellants do argue, however, that the involvement of the government agents in the printing of the similitudes was so unfair as to violate due process. Interpreting the Supreme Court's recent entrapment decision we have held:

Hampton left open the possibility that the conviction of a predisposed defendant may be reversed where the government's involvement in the criminal scheme reaches such an outrageous level as to violate due process. --- U.S. ---- (at ----), 48 L.Ed.2d 113, 96 S.Ct. 1646, (at 1650), 44 U.S.L.W. at 4544 (Powell J., concurring); id. ---...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP