United States v. Acosta-Garcia
| Decision Date | 20 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1414,71-1415.,71-1414 |
| Citation | 448 F.2d 395 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel ACOSTA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Florencio URIAS-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gordon T. Alley, (argued), Sullivan, Alley & Seefeldt, Tucson, Ariz., for Florencio Urias-Montoya.
Lawrence Ollason, (argued), Gilbert Gonzales, Tucson, Ariz., for Manuel Acosta-Garcia.
Stephen McNamee, (argued), Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Stanley L. Patchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before JERTBERG, MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER,* District Judge.
Appellants were arrested, indicted and, after jury trial, convicted of unlawful importation of marihuana pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 176a.
At the beginning of trial, as appellants were being brought into the courtroom, some members of the panel of prospective jurors saw that appellants were in handcuffs which appellants contend created a prejudicial atmosphere not dissipated by the trial court's admonition that appellants' custody was not to be equated with guilt. Appellants specify this as error.
We do not agree. The mere fact that some prospective members of the jury may have seen appellants in handcuffs is not so prejudicial as to require a mistrial, Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968), particularly where, as here, the trial court took great pains to explain that this occurrence was to have no bearing on the jury's consideration of the merits of the case against appellants.
In addition to the handcuffing issue, which applies to both appellants, appellant Acosta-Garcia urges that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to sever trial of his case from that of co-defendant Urias-Montoya, and (2) admitting testimony by a government witness, one Treto, that he had been involved in numerous prior smuggling cases. The trial court admitted a statement by Urias-Montoya to the effect that the bricks of marihuana in question were purchased at "$25.00 each," which Acosta-Garcia contends was inadmissible hearsay evidence as to him since the jury could have interpreted the statement to mean that $25.00 was paid by each of the defendants. We doubt that the jury attached such a meaning to the statement and even if it did in spite of the trial court's instruction that any remark by Urias-Montoya was to be applied only against him and not against Acosta-Garcia, any error in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Taylor
...the curative charge together served, we think, to supplant the voir dire of the allegedly exposed jurors. See United States v. Acosta-Garcia, 448 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1971). Such a voir dire might only have exacerbated the situation by making the questioned jurors more aware, or perhaps ......
-
McGuire v. Martel, 1:11-CV-00330 GSA HC
...inconceivable that this statement by the trial judge would so prejudice Petitioner as to require a mistrial. See United States v. Acosta-Garcia, 448 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir.1971). As to Petitioner's claim that the trial court should have admonished the jury regarding gang evidence, there was......
-
U.S. v. Milner
...jury that the custody status of a defendant is irrelevant to determine guilt or innocence. Id. at 562. See also United States v. Acosta-Garcia, 448 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir.1971) (mere fact that some jurors viewed defendants in handcuffs was not so prejudicial as to require a In United States......
-
United States v. Rickus
...the jurors may have seen the defendants in handcuffs was not so inherently prejudicial to require a mistrial. See United States v. Acosta-Garcia, 448 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Figuero-Espinoza, 454 F.2d 590, 591 (9th Cir. 1972); McCoy v. Wainwright, 396 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1......