Sanders v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20814.,20814. |
| Citation | 373 F.2d 735 |
| Parties | Thomas Clayton SANDERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Chris T. Johnson, McGillicuddy & Johnson, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.
William P. Copple, U. S. Atty., Morton Sitver, Henry L. Zalut, Lawrence Turoff, Asst. U. S. Attys., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before JONES, Senior Judge, U. S. Court of Claims, BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.
In our opinion there is more than sufficient evidence in the record to convict appellant of the charge made against him (18 U.S.C. § 2421, interstate transportation of a woman for purposes of prostitution).
The sufficiency of the evidence to convict, however, is not the question before us. Government counsel asked one of two witnesses, who claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege, at least fifty-five questions, of which at least ten questions might well, if answered, have incriminated the witness. The second witness, claiming her Fifth Amendment privilege, was asked very few questions.
We conclude that the facts and procedures in this case do not fall within the rule of Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963), but do come within the reasoning underlying Fletcher v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 332 F.2d 724 (1964).
Without attempting to particularize, we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case, viewed in their entirety, inferences from Charlotte Ann Currin's refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus prejudiced appellant Sanders. These inferences affected his substantial rights.
The judgment of the district court, therefore, must be reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Roselli
...to ask the witness fourteen leading questions, including many extremely prejudicial to the defendant's case. In Sanders v. United States, 373 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1967), the witness was asked at least ten incriminating questions. In United States v. Maloney, 262 F.2d 535 (2d Cir. 1959), the t......
-
U.S. v. Anderson
...83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963); Fletcher v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 138, 332 F.2d 724, 725 (1964); Sanders v. United States, 373 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1967).93 See Piemonte v. United States, 367 U.S. 556, 559 n.2, 81 S.Ct. 1720, 6 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1961); Reina v. United States,......
-
McBride v. State
...where a prosecutor purposely calls a witness in order to put the witness' refusal to respond before the jury. See Sanders v. United States, 9th Cir., 373 F.2d 735 (1967); Fletcher v. United States, D.C.Cir., 332 F.2d 724 (1964); United States v. Maloney, 2d Cir., 262 F.2d 535 Here, the reco......
-
Commonwealth v. DuVal
... ... grounds. Indeed, on the only occasion on which the Supreme ... Court of the United States has considered the propriety of ... such conduct, the Court emphasized that '(n)o ... denied, 385 U.S. 956, ... 87 S.Ct. 391, 17 L.Ed.2d 303 (1966); Sanders v. United ... States, 373 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1967); Namet v. United States, ... 373 U.S. 179, 83 ... ...