United States v. Ketola, 71-2285.

Decision Date28 March 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-2285.,71-2285.
Citation455 F.2d 83
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Einer KETOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

John J. Cleary (argued) and Robert Boles, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Catherine A. Chandler, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JERTBERG and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS,* District Judge.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 28, 1972.

PER CURIAM:

The grand jury for the Southern District of California returned a five-count indictment, charging the appellant, Einer Ketola, and co-defendants Eldon Stanley Morisch and Dale Herbert Knutson, in Count One with violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, and Title 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324, conspiracy to unlawfully transport aliens. Counts Two through Five charged the same persons with the unlawful transportation of aliens in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a) (2).

Prior to appellant's trial, co-defendants Morisch and Knutson pleaded guilty to lesser offenses and this case was dismissed as to them. Both testified as witnesses for the Government at appellant's trial.

Following trial to a jury appellant was convicted of the offenses set forth in all five counts.

Following denial of appellant's motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, appellant was committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of three years on each count, subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4208(a) (2), and all sentences were directed to run concurrently.

On this appeal, appellant contends:

(a) that the evidence was insufficient to support appellant's conviction on Count One (conspiracy), and on Counts Two, Three, Four and Five (unlawful transportation of aliens within the United States);

(b) that the Government was improperly permitted to impeach one of its own witnesses;

(c) that evidence of a prior similar act prejudiced appellant and constituted plain error; and

(d) that the district court erred in denying appellant a complete transcript of the trial proceedings for appellate review.

We first consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain appellant's conviction for conspiring to unlawfully transport Mexican aliens in the United States.

Viewed in the light most favorable to sustain the conviction, the essential facts revealed by the record disclose that on or about June 6, 1970, appellant and co-defendants, Morisch and Knutson, met at the Ranger Bar in Pacoima, California, located in the vicinity of Los Angeles. Appellant agreed to pay to co-defendants compensation if they would transport Mexican aliens from an area in the United States, near the Mexican border, to appellant at Pacoima, California. Appellant described the area where the aliens would be located, and told the co-defendants to stop their car there, shout the name "Felipe," and open the trunk of the car.

Following the conversation, co-defendants proceeded by automobile to the specified location, stopped their car, opened the trunk, shouted "Felipe," and four Mexican males got into the trunk of the car. On the return trip to Pacoima, co-defendants were stopped at an immigration checkpoint at Oceanside, California, and the four Mexican males were discovered in the trunk of the car.

Appellant's main contention is that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the four Mexican males were aliens, and insufficient to establish such knowledge on the part of the appellant.

Appellant's contention is without merit. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement to violate a law of the United States, and is a separate and distinct crime from the commission of the substantive crime which is the objective of the conspiracy. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954). Thus, it was not necessary to establish that the Mexican males discovered in the trunk of the car were in fact aliens illegally in this country, nor that they were unlawfully transported.

In our view the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • U.S. v. Kearney
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 22 de agosto de 1977
    ...446 F.2d 1201, 1205 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019, 92 S.Ct. 683, 30 L.Ed.2d 667 (1972). See United States v. Ketola, 455 F.2d 83, 85 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded on another ground, 409 U.S. 815, 93 S.Ct. 139, 34 L.Ed.2d 72 (1972), aff'd on remand, 478 F.2d 64, cert.......
  • United States v. Hearn, 73-1603
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 7 de maio de 1974
    ...unlawful agreement to receive and conceal, accompanied by one or more acts in furtherance of the unlawful agreement. United States v. Ketola, 455 F.2d 83, 85 (9th Cir. 1972). Applying the rules laid down in Brown v. United States, supra, to the facts of this case, the appellants were withou......
  • United States v. Greer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 12 de agosto de 1975
    ...conceal is the unlawful agreement . . ., accompanied by one or more acts in furtherance of the unlawful agreement. United States v. Ketola, 455 F.2d 83, 85 (9th Cir. 1972)." See also Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Coffey, 493 F.2d 1304 (6th Cir. 1974), U. S. v. Bostic, 480 F.2d 965 (6th C......
  • United States v. Hendricks, 71-1598.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 4 de abril de 1972
    ...under the subsequent counts were concurrent, it is not necessary for us to consider the validity of those convictions. United States v. Ketola, 455 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Moore, 452 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. Affirmed. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT