United States v. Raymond G. Mendoza

Mendoza appeals from his conviction for possessing and passing three counterfeit ten dollar Federal Reserve notes. 18 U.S.C. § 472 . He urges reversal on three grounds.

Mendoza, a Mexican-American, argues that he was not adequately warned of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), because the warnings were not given in Spanish as well as English. The testimony as to his ability to understand English was in conflict. The issue was one of credibility. The court resolved that issue in favor of the government. There was clearly substantial evidence to support the finding that Mendoza fully understood his rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived them. See Jordan v. United States, 421 F.2d 493, 496-497 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Valdes, 417 F.2d 335, 337-338 (2d Cir. 1969). Cf. United States v. Trabucco, 424 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1970).

Mendoza argues that hearsay statements of an alleged accomplice, introduced at the trial for the limited, non-hearsay purpose of demonstrating probable cause for arrest, violated his right of confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476…