United States v. Romero, 72-2448.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: KOELSCH, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit
• Citation: United States v. Romero, 469 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1972)
• Decision Date: 21 November 1972
• Docket Number: No. 72-2448.,72-2448.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Lopez ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

469 F.2d 1078 (1972)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Lopez ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2448.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

November 21, 1972.

Philip DeMassa (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

James W. Meyers, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Douglas G. Hendricks, Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Attys., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KOELSCH, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Relying upon this court's decision in United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, 450 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1971), the appellant, Antonio Lopez Romero, contends that he was entitled to have the criminal charges dismissed because the government "failed to allow appellant the opportunity to interview . . . witnesses."¹

We disagree. The record, fairly appraised, does not, in our view, reflect that the government was guilty of bad faith or negligence in its actions. In this conclusion, we are fully aware that during the pre-complaint investigation, all or some of the four suspects, of whom Romero was one, had stated to the government investigator that they could substantiate alibis by witnesses; and we grant that any such witnesses could only be found amongst the other detainees of the United States Detention Facility which Romero and the three others were suspected of burning. However, there were some 300 such detainees in the facility and neither Romero nor the other three had singled out any, by name or otherwise, during the course of the investigation.

At the preliminary arraignment, Romero and the other three were advised at some length of their right to witnesses and to process to assure the latters' attendance at further proceedings. Immediately afterward, Nozar Pundole, one of the four, broached the matter to the investigator. The latter, believing that Pundole spoke for the whole group, pointed out that counsel would shortly be appointed; he...