United States v. Ushakow, 72-2654.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2654.,72-2654. |
| Citation | 474 F.2d 1244 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glory Walter USHAKOW, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Benjamin Lazarow (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
David S. Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Daniel G. Knauss, Asst. U. S. Atty., William C. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and LUCAS,* District Judge.
Ushakow appeals his conviction subsequent to a jury trial on a one-count indictment charging possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
Ushakow challenges the admissibility of certain testimony. First, he objects to a conversation related by Carlon between Chicas and himself pertaining to who sold marijuana in Nogales. Chicas spoke in Spanish and there was no proof that Ushakow understood Spanish. However, the record reflects that Carlon was translating and was merely a language conduit between Ushakow and Chicas. Therefore, his testimony is within the same exception to the hearsay rule as when a defendant and another are speaking the same language.
Subsequent to this conversation, Ushakow and Carlon drove to Nogales and discussed marijuana in English with Trujillo; this discussion was clearly admissible.
Ushakow also objects to Carlon's testimony concerning a later conversation when he was not present. Carlon testified that, about one month later, he contacted Trujillo about marijuana Ushakow was to receive in Tucson. Plans concerning delivery were discussed. Although a conspiracy was not alleged, the discussion was properly allowed in evidence on the basis of the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule. See United States v. Williams, 435 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 995, 91 S.Ct. 1241, 28 L.Ed.2d 533 (1971); United States v. Griffin, 434 F.2d 978 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 995, 91 S.Ct. 2170, 29 L.Ed.2d 160 (1971).
As with its twin brother conspiracy, the trier of fact first must determine the existence of the joint venture as a prerequisite foundation to the admission of any statements against the accused. Here the question was presented to the jury, but the trial court neglected to instruct that the joint venture must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Griffin, supra at 984. However, no objection was raised to the joint venture...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Barnes
...Rev'd on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975); United States v. Ushakow, 474 F.2d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Adams, 446 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied,404 U.S. 943, 92 S.Ct. 294, 30 L.Ed.2d 257 It is equa......
-
Taylor v. State
...be found to exist," and "the translator is no more than a ‘language conduit [.]’ " Id. at 832 (quoting United States v. Ushakow, 474 F.2d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.1973) (per curiam)).In Charles, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that in the post-Crawford era this so-called "language-conduit" doctrin......
-
U.S. v. Alvarez
...may properly be found to exist. In those circumstances the translator is no more than a "language conduit," United States v. Ushakow, 474 F.2d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.1973), and a testimonial identity between declarant and translator brings the declarant's admissions within Rule 801(d)(2)(C) or......
-
United States v. Charles
...making the interpreter a “language conduit” of the defendant for hearsay purposes. 725 F.2d at 832 (quoting United States v. Ushakow, 474 F.2d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.1973)).6 While Alvarez and Da Silva hold admissible, under the hearsay rules, a witness's testimony of an interpreter's out-of-c......