John E. Bradford v. United States

The appellant, John E. Bradford, was convicted by a jury of two counts in an indictment charging him with selling heroin on two different dates in violation of § 174, Title 21 U.S.C.A. He received a sentence of fifteen years on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.

According to a portion of the Government’s testimony, the government agent Farrington made purchases of heroin on two occasions from Bradford and paid him the sum of $275.00 on each occasion. Bradford’s testimony, while similar to Farrington’s on many points, differed therefrom in certain particulars. Bradford admitted that he received the money from Farrington on each occasion. His story, however, was that Farrington had asked him to make a “buy” of heroin for him from a certain “Pat”. The appellant testified that he was an addict and that Farrington had said that he would give him a couple of capsules of heroin if he, Bradford, made the buy for him. Bradford then testified that he contacted “Pat” and was told by “Pat” where the heroin would be and where to leave the money. Bradford further testified that *60 he met Farrington at this place, and that Farrington picked up the heroin in a brown package in a…

On Petition for Rehearing

Before BARNES, HAMLIN and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.

After the decision affirming the judgment of conviction, a petition for rehearing was filed, calling to our attention that appellant had, about a month prior to the filing of appellee’s brief, petitioned the Court to supplement his opening brief by adding as an additional ground for reversal that the District Court had erred in failing to order certain notes turned over to appellant’s counsel as required under the rule announced in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 , 77 S.Ct. 1007 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 . The trial took place prior to the Jencks decision on June 3, 1957.

Due to inadvertence this petition did not reach the panel which heard the case, thus was not acted upon. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel understandably believed it had been denied, and therefore did not cover the Jencks point either in brief or on oral argument. After oral argument, counsel for appellant learned that his petition to file a supplemental brief had not been denied, and subsequently petitioned for rehearing, calling to our attention that he had in effect been prevented from briefing and arguing his contention of error…

271 F.2d 58 John E. BRADFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 15624. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. March 9, 1959, On Rehearing Oct. 9, 1959. John E. Bradford, in pro. per., Cantillon & Cantillon, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Lelia F. Bulgrin, Robert John Jensen, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before FEE, BARNES and HAMLIN, circuit Judges. HAMLIN, Circuit Judge. 1 The appellant, John E. Bradford, was convicted by a jury of two counts in an indictment charging him with selling heroin on two different dates in violation of 174, Title 21 U.S.C.A. He received a sentence of fifteen years on each count, the sentences to run consecutively. 2 According to a portion of the Government's testimony, the government agent Farrington made purchases of heroin on two occasions from Bradford and paid him the sum of $275.00 on each occasion. Bradford's testimony, while similar to Farrington's on many points, differed therefrom in certain particulars. Bradford admitted that he received the money from Farrington on each occasion. His story, however, was that Farrington had asked him to make a 'buy' of…