U.S. v. Ives
| Decision Date | 15 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1726,73-1726 |
| Citation | 547 F.2d 1100 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin IVES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mark E. Vovos (argued), of Bovey & Vovos, Spokane, Wash., Kelly Hancock (argued), Omak, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUNIWAY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and WOLLENBERG, * District Judge.
Our opinion in this case, 504 F.2d 935, was filed August 9, 1974. Ives petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97.
Thereafter, the Court ordered "that the judgment of the said United States Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)." See 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).
An examination of Drope makes clear that the only issues which the Court has directed us to consider further are found in part II of our opinion. Therefore, we reinstate parts I, III and IV of our opinion.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings pertaining to the issues contained in part II of our opinion in light of Drope, as well as DeKaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).
* Honorable Albert C. Wollenberg, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Martinez
...(per Wallace, J.), vacated, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975), reinstated in part, vacated and remanded in part, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103, 97 S.Ct. 1130, 51 L.Ed.2d 554 (1977). No inquiry was then held to be necessary to demonstrate that the ......
-
State v. Anthony
...(9th Cir.1974), vacated on other grounds, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir.1976) (holding that a defendant may forfeit the privilege to testify through conduct); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322 (Alaska 2009) (......
-
United States v. Gillenwater
...(9th Cir.1974) (right to testify at trial), vacated,421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975), reinstated in relevant part,547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir.1976). Although a district judge has discretion to manage her courtroom, we look carefully at the denial of the right to testify because ......
-
U.S. v. Panza
...43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975), Reinstated in pertinent part, remanded in other part, 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103, 97 S.Ct. 1130, 51 L.Ed.2d 554 (1977). See generally Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071, 1084 (5th Cir.) (......