United States v. Andrews, 71-2187.
| Citation | 455 F.2d 632 |
| Decision Date | 29 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2187.,71-2187. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lee Travis ANDREWS, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Philip Mirecki, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Crim. Div., David H. Anderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and ELY, Circuit Judges.
Andrews appeals his conviction for having stolen certain produce being transported in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 659).
It is here maintained that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Andrews was incriminated by the testimony of an accomplice, but he argues that his conviction should be vacated because this accusing testimony was not corroborated.
It is well settled in our Circuit that a conviction may properly rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on its face. See, e. g., Darden v. United States, 405 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1969).1 Even were the rule to the contrary, our conclusion would not be altered. It was proved that Andrews made certain admissions, and these admissions were amply corroborative of the testimony of the accomplice.
Affirmed.
1 Judge Ely notes, as he has done before, his hope that the court will one day re-examine its existing rule. He believes that the accusing testimony of an accomplice, especially one whom the Government may favor because of his testimony, is so inherently suspect that its corroboration should be required.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arellano v. Harrington, No. CIV S-10-2684 DAD P
...is not 'incredible or insubstantial on its face,' the rule is not required by the Constitution or federal law."); United States v. Andrews, 455 F.2d 632, 633 (9th Cir. 1972) ("It is well settled in our Circuit that a conviction may properly rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accompl......
-
U.S. v. Turner
...1029 (CA9 1972). This is the rule unless the testimony of the accomplice is incredible or unsubstantial on its face. United States v. Andrews, 455 F.2d 632 (CA9 1972). Here, the testimony of D'Amore is substantially corroborated by the independent evidence of the phone calls and the officer......
-
United States v. Hibler
...Judge, District of Idaho, sitting by designation. 1 See, e. g., United States v. Daniel, 9 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 1029; United States v. Andrews, 9 Cir., 1972, 455 F.2d 632; United States v. Williams, 9 Cir., 1970, 424 F.2d 1056, cert. denied, 399 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 2198, 26 L.Ed.2d 561; Mont......
-
U.S. v. Jacobson
...Devitt & Blackmar, §§ 17.02, 17.06), despite the fact that it may be legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. United States v. Andrews, 455 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1972). It is evident that trailing the contraband to its ultimate recipient is very useful corroboration. This is an approved pur......