United States v. Ted Frederick Williams

On his appeal from his conviction for smuggling marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, Williams contends that: (1) Section 176a is unconstitutional because compliance with the federal statutes that would have legalized his importation of marihuana would have subjected him to incrimination under state laws penalizing possession of marihuana; (2) the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplice, Knight, was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (3) the denial of his motion to disclose the informer’s identity was prejudicial error.

His first contention has been rejected by this circuit in cases decided after his briefs were filed. (United States v. de Polanco (9th Cir. 1970) 422 F.2d 1304 ; Witt v. United States (9th Cir.) 413 F.2d 303 , cert. denied (1969) 396 U.S. 932 , 90 S.Ct. 272 , 4 L.Ed.2d 230 .)

If Williams’ second contention is that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is never sufficient to sustain a conviction, the contention has been often answered adversely to him. (E. g., Suhl v. United States (9th Cir.) 390 F.2d 547 , cert. denied (1968) 391 U.S. 964 , 88 S.Ct. 2035 , 20 L.Ed.2d 879 ; Moody v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 376 F.2d 525 .) If the…