Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Benjamin Stagg

540 F.2d 1010

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1976-09-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Stagg’s six-count conviction for conspiracy and for possessing and distributing co *1011 caine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), is remanded for a new trial. United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc). The district court, believing at the time of trial that it was bound by Eastman v. United States, 212 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1954), did not permit Stagg to present his tendered entrapment defense until after he took the stand and admitted the conduct described by the government’s witnesses.

Citator

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

Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. STAGG,540 F.2d 1010(9th Cir. 1976)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. BENJAMIN STAGG, APPELLANT.
No. 75-3013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 26, 1976.
Rehearing Denied September 24, 1976.
Michael D. Nasatir (argued), of Nasatir, Sherman Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Darrell MacIntyre (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Stagg's six-count conviction for conspiracy and for possessing and distributing cocainePage 1011in violation of21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1), and18 U.S.C. § 2(aiding and abetting), is remanded for a new trial.United States v. Demma,523 F.2d 981(9th Cir. 1975) (en banc).

[2] The district court, believing at the time of trial that it was bound byEastman v. United States,212 F.2d 320(9th Cir. 1954), did not permit Stagg to present his tendered entrapment defense until after he took the stand and admitted the conduct described by the government's witnesses.

[3] InUnited States v. Demma, supra,decided after this case was tried, we held that theEastmanrule was inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions on entrapment. We overruledEastmanwithout indicating whetherDemmashould apply to pending cases. We did point out, however, that the rule inDemmawas not a declaration of a new rule of law, but merely a correction of an aberration which began withEastman.Accordingly, there is no reason for refusing to applyDemmato cases pending on appeal at the timeDemmawas decided.United States v. Hart(9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).

[4] Vacated and remanded.
  1. The Honorable Robert F. Peckham, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩