Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Lee Travis Andrews

United States v. Lee Travis Andrews, 455 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-02-29
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Andrews appeals his conviction for having stolen certain produce being transported in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 659). It is here maintained that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Andrews was incriminated by the testimony of an accomplice, but he argues that his conviction should be vacated because this accusing testimony was not corroborated. It is well settled in our Circuit that a conviction may properly rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on its face. See, e. g., Darden v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Lee Travis Andrews. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS,455 F.2d 632(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. Lee TRAVIS ANDREWS, APPELLANT.
No. 71-2187.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
February 29, 1972.
Page 633
Philip Mirecki, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Crim. Div., David H. Anderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and ELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Andrews appeals his conviction for having stolen certain produce being transported in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 659).

[2] It is here maintained that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Andrews was incriminated by the testimony of an accomplice, but he argues that his conviction should be vacated because this accusing testimony was not corroborated.

[3] It is well settled in our Circuit that a conviction may properly rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on its face.See, e. g.,Darden v. United States,405 F.2d 1054(9th Cir. 1969).1Even were the rule to the contrary, our conclusion would not be altered. It was proved that Andrews made certain admissions, and these admissions were amply corroborative of the testimony of the accomplice.

[4] Affirmed.Page 673
  1. Judge Ely notes, as he has done before, his hope that the court will one day re-examine its existing rule. He believes that the accusing testimony of an accomplice, especially one whom the Government may favor because of his testimony, is so inherently suspect that its corroboration should be required. ↩