Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Richard C. Barnes

United States v. Richard C. Barnes, 431 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-09-22
Topic
general

BARNES, Circuit Judge: Appellant was charged in Count One with offering a bribe of $100 to two immigration officials on May 26, 1969; and in Count Two with the giving of a bribe of $25 to an immigration official on June 23, 1969. Appellant was convicted on Count Two and acquitted on Count One. He charges as error that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent; that the government split one crime into two counts improperly, that although this appellant was not in custody he was entitled to a Miranda type warning; and that the government failed to comply with local Rule 42, setting up a dead-line for notice to counsel of defendant’s admissions. While we may compliment appellant’s counsel on the able and imaginative manner in which the alleged errors were urged, (a) we find no inconsistency in the two verdicts; (b) the government’s charge of two counts was proper (United States v. Michelson, 165 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir.), aff’d 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)); (c) a person is entitled to no warning during the commission of a crime (Grier v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Richard C. Barnes. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. BARNES,431 F.2d 878(9th Cir. 1970)
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee, v. Richard C. BARNES,
Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 25707.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 24, 1970.
Rehearing Denied September 22, 1970.
Page 879
D. Thompson Slutes, Tucson, Ariz. (argued), of Lesher Scruggs, Tucson, Ariz., Dudley S. Welker, of Anderson Welker, Safford, Ariz., for appellant.

James Wilkes (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant was charged in Count One withofferinga bribe of $100 to two immigration officials on May 26, 1969; and in Count Two with thegivingof a bribe of $25 to an immigration official on June 23, 1969.

Appellant was convicted on Count Two and acquitted on Count One. He charges as error that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent; that the government split one crime into two counts improperly, that although this appellant was not in custody he was entitled to aMirandatype warning; and that the government failed to comply with local Rule 42, setting up a dead-line for notice to counsel of defendant's admissions.

While we may compliment appellant's counsel on the able and imaginative manner in which the alleged errors were urged, (a) we find no inconsistency in the two verdicts; (b) the government's charge of two counts was proper (United States v. Michelson,165 F.2d 732(2nd Cir.), aff'd335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)); (c) a person is entitled to no warning during the commission of a crime (Grier v. United States,345 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 1965); Feldstein v. United States,429 F.2d 1092(9th Cir. 1970); and (d) Rule 42 expressly provides the trial court may excuse compliance with the rule which it here did.

We affirm the conviction.