United States v. Simmons, 71-2028.
| Citation | 457 F.2d 763 |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2028.,71-2028. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marvin SIMMONS, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
E. Mark Himelstein (argued), Tim M. Savinar, of Penrod, Himelstein, Savinar & Sims, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Daniel E. Ahlstrom, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Alan B. Andrews, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.
Before KOELSCH and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CARR,* District Judge.
Marvin Simmons was convicted, following a trial to the court, of violating the Dyer Act (18 U.S.C. § 2312). On this appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction, he urges two errors. Neither has merit.
First: The court acted well within its discretion in refusing to permit cross-examination of a government witness concerning the precise location on the automobile of the manufacturer's "secret numbers" to which the witness resorted, in order to identify the vehicle as the one Simmons had stolen. In some circumstances, a limitation on such proposed cross-examination might constitute reversible error; but, as aptly stated in United States v. Williamson, 272 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 920, 80 S.Ct. 672, 4 L.Ed.2d 740, ". . . there is nothing in this record to indicate that the location of the serial number would be material or that by inspection and discovery of the number or the location the testimony of the agent might be impeached."
Second: The same conclusion is warranted with respect to the district court's denial of a continuance, sought on the day of trial, in order to permit Simmons to engage counsel of his own choosing. United States v. Deegan, 428 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 928, 91 S.Ct. 193, 27 L.Ed.2d 188, and see Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964). The "reason" Simmons gave for desiring a change was specious and the record manifests that his appointed counsel afforded him competent and effective assistance at all stages of the matter.
The judgment is affirmed.
* Honorable Charles H. Carr, United States District Judge, Los Angele,s California, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Harris
...resume on Friday. Under these circimstances, we are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion. See United States v. Simmons, 457 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1972). Next, appellants, although conceding that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was facially sufficient to estab......
-
U.S. v. Lustig
...the record to determine the adequacy of representation and possible prejudice from a denial of a continuance. See United States v. Simmons, 457 F.2d 763, 764 (9 Cir. 1972); Torres v. United States, 270 F.2d 252, 255 (9 Cir. 1959). And the record in this case reveals extensive and It is argu......
-
State v. Bonner
...show that the location of the confidential VIN is material to his defense before disclosure is required. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 457 F.2d 763 (9th Cir.1972); United States v. Briddle, 430 F.2d 1335 (8th Cir.1970); Gurleski v. United States, 405 F.2d 253 (5th Cir.1968), cert. de......
-
Com. v. Lowry
...States v. Briddle, 430 F.2d 1335, 1341 (8th Cir.1970); Williamson v. United States, 272 F.2d 495, 497 (5th Cir.1960); United States v. Simmons, 457 F.2d 763 (9th Cir.1972). We therefore hold that the qualified privilege afforded the identity of informants, and the factors the court consider......