United States v. Philip Mirenda, United States of America v. Jose M. Verdugo-Medina, United States of America v. Ramon Fragoso-Herrera

Good Law
443 F.2d 1351
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 20, 197126824, 26825, and 26826California1,546 words

Opinion

Opinion

Barnes, J.

The three actions entitled as above are appeals from a joint trial of three of five defendants jointly indicted. The charge was that they did, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, “receive, conceal, buy, sell and facilitate the transportation, concealment and sale of 325 pounds of marijuana, at Tucson, Arizona, on June 7, 1970,” after the said marijuana had been imported contrary to law, when said defendants knew the said marijuana had not been presented for inspection at the point of entry into the United States, namely Nogales, Arizona. The inspection was required by 19 U.S.C. § 1461 ; the concealment and sale allegedly violated 21 U.S.C. § 176a.

Each of the defendants urge as error on this appeal various points. Some are urged only by one defendant; some by two defendants; one by all three.

Without passing on appellant Fragoso’s first alleged error — withdrawn as moot at the time of oral argument — we adopt the appellee’s division of the alleged errors into eight categories, noting which defendants urged the point.

I. (Urged by all three defendants.) Error in refusing a continuance of trial.

II. (Urged by Mirenda and Fragoso.) Error in the court’s order…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.