United States v. Rowe, 26011.
| Citation | 435 F.2d 1298 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26011.,26011. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William R. ROWE, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert S. Marder (argued), of Garry, Dreyfus, McTernan & Brotsky, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
F. Steele Langford (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff and appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Rowe has been convicted of a customs fraud.
It was within the sound discretion of the trial court to limit Rowe's testimony on collateral transactions of the accountant Zahnley.
The most serious point was on the denial of a peremptory challenge on a juror by the trial court right in front of the jury. This was probably no boon to defendant. The incident occurred because experienced counsel was not familiar with the practice in the particular division of the court.
The procedure and action of the court offended no statute or rule of the court. We hold that counsel here was responsible for knowing the procedure in the court. The appellant relies on Avila v. United States, 9 Cir., 76 F.2d 39. On its facts, Avila is distinguishable. There the defendant did not get the benefit of the court's own rule, and he had a right to it.
We find no merit to the contention about authentication of documents, the failure to suppress certain documents, or in the challenges made to the instructions.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Turner
...as well as the unwary litigant to the profit of no one. (E. g., United States v. Sams (5th Cir. 1972) 470 F.2d 751; United States v. Rowe (9th Cir. 1970) 435 F.2d 1298; New England Enterprises, Inc. v. United States (1st Cir. 1968) 400 F.2d 58. See also 2 Wright, Fed.Prac. & Proc. § 387.) 1......
-
State v. Barth
...to require counsel to exercise challenges in the presence and hearing of veniremen rather than at side bar); United States v. Rowe, 435 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir.1970) (the court's ruling on peremptory challenge of a juror in front of the jury offended no statute or rule of procedure for exe......