Billeci v. United States
Decision Date | 12 May 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 16992.,16992. |
Citation | 290 F.2d 628 |
Parties | Salvatore BILLECI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Richard D. Sanders, Pittsburg, Cal., for appellant.
Laurence E. Dayton, U. S. Atty., and John Kaplan, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before POPE and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and LINDBERG, District Judge.
On January 27, 1960 an indictment was returned against appellant charging him under Title 21, section 174 of the United States Code Annotated with the concealment of heroin which had been imported into the United States contrary to law. A jury trial was held and a verdict of guilty returned. Judgment was entered against appellant and sentence imposed on April 28, 1960 and a timely notice of appeal was filed.
Appellant urges two grounds for reversal of his conviction. First, it is claimed that his arrest was illegal and thus any evidence taken from his person at that time was illegally seized and therefore inadmissible. Second, it is alleged that certain remarks or statements made by the trial judge during the course of the trial prevented appellant from having a fair trial. It is to be noted that during the trial and on this appeal appellant was represented by counsel of his own choice.
It is conceded that no motion to suppress the alleged illegally seized evidence, as required by Rule 41(e), Fed. Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A., was made before or during the trial nor was any objection raised by appellant when the evidence was admitted. Further, appellant made no objection or motion for a mistrial when the alleged prejudicial remarks or statements were made by the trial judge.
The failure to properly make a record of objections to the procedures in the trial court does not necessarily preclude an appellate court from considering a claim of error first raised on appeal in a criminal case. Rule 52(b) Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. In Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 181, 184, we said:
The application of Rule 52(b) is within the sound judicial discretion of the court. United States v. Jones, 7 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 745, certiorari denied, 1953, 346 U.S. 854, 74 S.Ct. 67, 98 L.Ed. 368.
Assuming arguendo that the evidence taken from the person of appellant was illegally seized and thus erroneously admitted, it is difficult to see how such an error seriously affected the "fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." See United States v. Atkinson, 1936, 297 U.S. 157, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555. Evidence which is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Essex
...131, 17 L.Ed.2d 94 (1966). The application of the plain error rule is within the sound discretion of the court. Billeci v. United States, 290 F.2d 628, 629 (9th Cir.1961). It is to be applied sparingly to errors vital to defendants. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 3, 102 S.Ct. ......
-
Robison v. United States
...of the parole officer's testimony, we find nothing in this record approaching "plain error" requiring reversal. See Billeci v. United States, 290 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1961). Citing Notaro v. United States, 363 F.2d 169 (9th Cir. 1966), appellant contends that the trial court's instruction on ......
-
Cipres v. United States
...v. United States, 342 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1965); Gilbert v. United States, 307 F.2d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1962); Billeci v. United States, 290 F.2d 628, 629 (9th Cir. 1961); compare Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 17 Ogden v. United States, 323 F.2d 818, 822 (9t......
-
Dickey v. United States
...asks us to consider the new grounds under the "plain error" rule, Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.8 In Billeci v. United States, 9 Cir., 290 F.2d 628, 629, where no trial court objection had been made to the introduction of the evidence, and no motion to suppress had been ma......