United States v. Dykes, 72-1007.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1007.,72-1007. |
| Citation | 460 F.2d 324 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dan DYKES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James P. Hagerstrom, Federal Defenders Inc., Benjamin F. Rayborn, Legal Research Association, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Stephen C. Nelson, Douglas G. Hendricks, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUNIWAY, TRASK and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Dan Dykes appeals his conviction by a jury of passing and possessing counterfeit bills in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472.We affirm.
First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain a motion to suppress evidence presented the morning the trial was to begin.Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) requires that such a motion "shall be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at trial or hearing."Here, the motion was based upon facts known to appellant and his attorney well before the trial date.In any event, the record demonstrates that the police had probable cause to arrest appellant when they were summoned by the store manager who mistakenly believed a robbery was in progress.
Second, appellant was not deprived of effective representation of counsel because a substitute defense attorney was present with him when the jury was instructed.Appellant expressed no objection...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Moss v. Miniard
...witnesses. Further, although Moss's retained counsel, Steingold, did not conduct the entire entrapment hearing, Moss was still represented by Lisa Dwyer in those instances without Moss's objection. See, e.g.,
United States v. Dykes, 460 F. 2d 324, 325 (9th Cir. 1972)(defendant was not deprived of effective representation of counsel because substitute defense attorney was present during jury instructions and defendant did not object to substitute attorney's presence and participation).6... -
Geiger v. State
...discloses no prejudice to a defendant by reason of substitution of attorneys during a trial the defendant is not denied effective assistance of counsel. United States v. Stewart, 435 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1970);
United States v. Dykes, 460 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1972). Even recognizing that the accused here made an intelligent waiver it is still incumbent upon this court to make certain that his voluntary consent for substitution of counsel did not deprive him of his constitutional... -
United States v. Amaral
...Circuit was clear that motions to suppress must be made before trial or hearing unless defendant lacked opportunity to move or if the court in its discretion, for some other good cause, entertained the motion during trial.
United States v. Dykes, 460 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Hamilton, 469 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. Since the amendment to Rule 41, however, the language construed in those cases has been eliminated and the procedure governing motions to suppress is presently... -
Johnson v. State
...not denied when co-defendant's counsel stood in for petitioner's counsel during re-instruction of the jury; co-defendant's attorney objected to conspiracy instruction on behalf of both defendant and co-defendant);
United States v. Dykes, 460 F.2d 324, 325 (9th Cir.1972)(defendant was not deprived of effective representation of counsel because a substitute defense attorney was present when the jury was instructed where defendant expressed no objection when substitute attorney introduced...