Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Paul Williams

468 F.2d 251

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-10-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Williams appeals from his conviction for illegally importing heroin and for possessing illegally imported heroin with the intention of distributing it in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952, 960, and 963. Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because it consisted (1) of circumstantial evidence that did not exclude every hypothesis but guilt and (2) of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. We rejected the first contention in United States v. Nelson (9th Cir. 1969) 419 F.2d 1237. There is abundant authority in this Circuit that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Citator

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

Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS,468 F.2d 251(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PAUL WILLIAMS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1830.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 4, 1972.
John N. Politis, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., Lyn I. Goldberg, Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before KOELSCH, HUFSTEDLER, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Williams appeals from his conviction for illegally importing heroin and for possessing illegally imported heroin with the intention of distributing it in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 952, 960, and 963.

[2] Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because it consisted (1) of circumstantial evidence that did not exclude every hypothesis but guilt and (2) of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

[3] We rejected the first contention in United States v. Nelson (9th Cir. 1969)419 F.2d 1237. There is abundant authority in this Circuit that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction. (E. g., United States v. Brooks (9th Cir. 1970))422 F.2d 367; Cheadle v. United States (9th Cir. 1966)370 F.2d 314, and cases therein cited.

[4] Affirmed.Page 274