United States v. Frank Garcia

Garcia appeals his conviction for having conspired with others to smuggle marijuana into the United States (21 U.S.C. § 176a) and for aiding and abetting in the smuggling of the marijuana ( 18 U.S.C. § 2 ). The judgments of conviction followed a jury’s determination that Garcia was guilty of the two offenses charged in the indictment.

The appeal presents four principal contentions. The first is that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction, and in this connection, Garcia claims that the determination of his guilt rested, improperly, upon the uncorroborated testimony of an acknowledged accomplice. Our court has repeatedly held that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is, of itself, sufficient to support conviction. See, e. g., Darden v. United States, 405 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir.1969); Rosensweig v. United States, 412 F.2d 844 (9th Cir.1969). This notwithstanding, the fact is that there was independent evidence offered by the Government which corroborated the incriminating testimony of the accomplice.

Garcia’s second contention is that the District Court erred in ruling that, if Garcia testified, the Government would be allowed to introduce proof, for impeachment…