United States v. Garle A. Whitson

Whitson was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d), possession of an unregistered firearm (a destructive device), and 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i), destruction of a vehicle used in interstate commerce. He appeals.

Whitson was due to appear in court in Los Angeles on Monday, September 16, 1974, on charges related to his amphetamine business. 1 Early that morning his van was blown up on a lonely road in the Big Sur area south of Monterey, California. The debris included expired credit cards and other items identified with Whitson.

Highway Patrol officers had stopped Whitson and his sister-in-law for speeding near Marina, California, a little over two hours before the explosion. Marina is about fifty miles and an hour’s drive from the site of the explosion. At the time of the stop, Whitson was driving the van and his sister-in-law was following in another car.

The government’s theory was that Whit-son intended to create the illusion that he had died in the explosion to explain his planned absence from the Los Angeles prosecution. Whitson testified that he left his van in a restaurant parking lot, and learned of the explosion from news broadcasts. He said he then decided not to return…

concurring and dissenting:

I fully agree with the majority’s conclusion that: “After Whitson had denied possessing a bomb for the purpose of destroying his van, searching cross-examination on Whitson’s general knowledge of explosives was no abuse of discretion.” On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that appellant’s sworn denials on cross-examination did not open the door to the alleged Miranda -barred statements to the police officer. It is wholly illogical to hold that a defendant may not hide beyond the shield of the Miranda rule if he perjures himself on direct examination, but may invoke the protection of Miranda if he perjures himself on the same subject matter on cross-examination.

DISCUSSION

On cross-examination appellant swore that he didn’t know anything about a bomb or explosives and had never read anything about explosives or bombs or the handling of such. Moreover, he swore that he did not have in his possession in April, 1973, a book which dealt with ordnance and explosives. The government then called a police officer who testified that in April, 1973, he entered the appellant’s office with a search warrant and there observed and…

587 F.2d 948 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Garle A. WHITSON, Appellant. No. 77-2193. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 22, 1978. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 15, 1978. Fred L. Baker (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Robert E. Carey, Jr. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before KILKENNY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and MURRAY * , District Judge. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: 1 Whitson was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d), possession of an unregistered firearm (a destructive device), and 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i), destruction of a vehicle used in interstate commerce. He appeals. 2 Whitson was due to appear in court in Los Angeles on Monday, September 16, 1974, on charges related to his amphetamine business. 1 Early that morning his van was blown up on a lonely road in the Big Sur area south of Monterey, California. The debris included expired credit cards and other items identified with Whitson. 3 Highway Patrol officers had stopped Whitson and his sister-in-law for speeding near Marina, California, a little over two hours…