United States v. Raymond J. Ryan

Appellant Ryan was convicted by a jury in the District Court of the offenses of obstruction of justice ( 18 U.S.C. § 1503 ) and of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 . The conspiracy count in the indictment was dismissed. Ryan was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

In his appeal, he assigns many alleged errors of law occurring at his trial, but his principal claim is that the Court erred in denying his several motions for judgment of acquittal.

On July 26, 1967, the Clerk of the District Court issued three identical duces tecum subpoenas calling for the appearance before the grand jury of Ray Ryan, Helen Hansen and Frank Hayden, c/o El Mirador Hotel, Palm Springs, California, on July 27, 1967, at 9:30 o’clock A.M. and to bring with them all records, papers and documents pertaining to the operation of Mawingo, Ltd., d. b. a. Mount Kenya Safari Club, Nan-yuki, Kenya, East Africa. 1 The subpoenas bore the name and telephone number of the United States Attorney and his assistant.

The issuance and service of the subpoenas have an interesting background. Assistant United States Attorney David R. Nissen, on July 26, 1967, received a telephone call at his Los Angeles office, from an…

(concurring and dissenting).

I join in the order making the first two amendments which are to appear in footnote 2 of the opinion.

I disagree with the language of the paragraph to be substituted for the fourth paragraph from the end of the majority following the asterisk. Although I joined the majority in the paragraph as it appeared in the original slip opinion, the substituted paragraph goes far beyond this in an attempt to rule upon matters that are not properly before us.

My own examination of the Marshall case, United States v. Marshall, 355 F.2d 999 (9th Cir. 1966), convinces me that Marshall and Ryan are totally unrelated' except for the fact that Ryan was a witness in the prior case. I find nothing in the record before us which establishes that “the indictment of Ryan stemmed from proceedings against Marshall,” and no conflict of interest.

Assuming the statements ascribed to the district judge are perhaps immoderate (at least when read out of context) and his rulings erroneous, we have ruled on the Ryan case which was before us. There is no occasion to rule on all future Ryan cases which may come before this judge, or to assume that a district judge will not manage his…

455 F.2d 728 20 A.L.R.Fed. 719 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond J. RYAN, Appellant. No. 71-1165. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Dec. 13, 1971. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 7, 1972. Herbert J. Miller (argued), Raymond G. Larroca, Nathan Lewin, of Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D. C., Orrick, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Marvin R. Loewy (argued), Philip R. Michael, of Dept. of Justice, Will Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Philip R. Michael, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), James L. Browning, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before WEICK, * HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges. WEICK, Circuit Judge: Appellant Ryan was convicted by a jury in the District Court of the offenses of obstruction of justice ( 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 ) and of violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 . The conspiracy count in the indictment was dismissed. Ryan was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. In his appeal, he assigns many alleged errors of law occurring at his trial, but his principal claim…