Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. George Eugene Ellis

United States v. George Eugene Ellis, 468 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-10-26
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • adopting procedure articulated in Palermo whereby Government must articulate substantial reasons to withhold information to protect witness’ safety

Citator

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

Cited by
10 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ELLIS,468 F.2d 638(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GEORGE EUGENE ELLIS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-2257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 26, 1972.
Page 639
Gregory S. Stout, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., Janet Aitken, F. Steele Langford, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] After denial of a motion to suppress marijuana which Ellis sold to an undercover agent in the presence of concealed police officers, Ellis waived trial by jury and was convicted under21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At the trial, Ellis attempted on cross-examination to elicit the correct name, residence, and occupation of the agent-purchaser. He appeals on the sole ground that the district court erred in restricting his effort to break the agent's "cover." The argument is without merit.

[2] In Smith v. Illinois,390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968), the defendant was denied the right to ask the principal prosecution witness, an informer who testified he had sold heroin to the defendant, his name and address. Holding that this limitation on cross-examination contravened the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. InSmith,however, the state gave no reasons which might have justified the refusal to disclose the agent's name and address.See390 U.S. at 134, 88 S.Ct. 748 (concurring opinion).

[3] Here, the prosecution represented to the court substantial reasons for withholding information to protect the agent from harm. While the procedures suggested in United States v. Palermo,410 F.2d 468, 472 (7th Cir. 1969), should ordinarily be followed in such circumstances, we conclude, in view of the marginal significance of the witness's testimony in this case, that no prejudice to the defendant can be shown. The government was fully prepared to go forward with the proper detailed showing of the personal danger to the witness. The incriminating transaction was observed by police officers, and the relevance of the personal history of the undercover agent was questionable.

[4] Affirmed.Page 769
  1. The Honorable William J. Jameson, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. ↩