United States v. John Doe

John Doe, 1 defendant-appellant, was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and importation of heroin. The issues on this appeal relate primarily to alleged errors with respect to the pretrial suppression hearing and the sentencing proceeding. We affirm the conviction, but remand for resentencing.

I. Factual Background

On December 22, 1978, Doe was aboard an airline flight from Seoul, Korea, to Seattle, Washington. He was accompanied by Richard Roe. 2 Both had been drinking during the flight. While in flight Roe offered a serviceman $500 to carry a duffel bag through customs. This offer was overheard by another passenger. The serviceman accepted the offer and upon landing in Seattle passed through a United States Customs checkpoint with the bag. Customs officers had been informed of the inflight conversation, however, and the serviceman was *923 stopped and taken to an examination room by an inspector. An inspection of the bag revealed ten packages of white powder which later proved to be approximately eight pounds of 92% heroin. When the serviceman observed the contents of the duffel bag he immediately implicated Doe and Roe, who were taken into custody,…

dissenting:

On appellant’s motion, and with the government’s concurrence, the majority has agreed to substitute a pseudonym for appellant’s true name throughout our opinion. The appellant claims this is necessary to protect him from retaliation in prison for his cooperation with the government, which is described in our opinion. It is from this substitution of a pseudonym that I dissent.

Generally court proceedings should be conducted in public and when so conducted there is normally no justification for not reflecting in any appellate opinion the parties as they were known in the proceeding below. To do otherwise must be regarded as a departure from the strong tradition of publicity in the courts and should be limited to the “unusual case.” See Doe v. Des-champs, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.Mont.1974) (three-judge court). In my view this is not such a case. Here the appellant made his arrangement with the government and now seeks to avoid one of the predictable consequences of his cooperation. Whatever its structure that arrangement did not include assurances of anonymity, nor would it bind this court if it had. We should decline to add to the government’s storehouse of tools with…

655 F.2d 920 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 79-1379. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 9, 1980. Decided Nov. 19, 1980. As Corrected Jan. 16, 1981. As Corrected April 2, 1981. 1 Judith E. Bendich, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant. 2 Jerry Diskin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. 4 Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge. JAMESON, District Judge: 5 John Doe, 1 defendant-appellant, was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and importation of heroin. The issues on this appeal relate primarily to alleged errors with respect to the pretrial suppression hearing and the sentencing proceeding. We affirm the conviction, but remand for resentencing. I. Factual Background 6 On December 22, 1978, Doe was aboard an airline flight from Seoul, Korea, to Seattle, Washington. He was accompanied by Richard Roe. 2 Both had been drinking during the flight. While in flight Roe offered a serviceman $500 to carry a…