Miguel Lamenca, Joseph Santos and Pedro Meza-Bustamonte v. United States

These are appeals from convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 176a (1964) for smuggling and conspiring to smuggle marihuana. We find no error.

The government’s circumstantial evidence, combined with appellants’ false statements to government agents, made a sufficient ease for the jury.

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), did not bar admission of appellants’ statements to government agents since none of the appellants requested counsel (Manning v. California, 378 F.2d 357, 358 (9th Cir. 1967)), and, in any event, there was ample basis for a finding of waiver.

The trial court’s refusal to force disclosure of the government’s informer was not error. The customs inspectors who searched the 1955 Chrysler automobile driven by Meza-Bustamonte acknowledged that they had been “tipped off” by an informer who claimed to have seen a 1955 Chrysler taken into the garage of a known Tijuana narcotics vendor. The informer also noted the presence at the scene of a late model Chevrolet, the description and California license number of which matched that of the car driven by Santos when he was arrested at the San Ysidro Port of Entry some thirty minutes later. Thus…