United States v. David Lee Pace

Bad Law
105 A.L.R. Fed. 653·833 F.2d 1307·1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15802
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 7, 198784-5362California4,324 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

David Lee Pace appeals his conviction for robbery of the Rockwell Federal Credit Union in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). On appeal, Pace contends: (1) the admission of the testimony of a cellmate informant to whom Pace made incriminating statements violated Pace’s sixth amendment right to counsel, (2) Pace’s fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was violated when he was not given Miranda warnings prior to making the incriminating statements, (3) cross-examination of two adverse witnesses was imper-missibly restricted, (4) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of possessing stolen funds, (5) the government violated Fed.R. Crim.P. 12.1 by failing to disclose the name and address of an alibi rebuttal witness, and (6) the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a newspaper television program schedule.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

FACTS

The Rockwell Federal Credit Union in Anaheim, California was robbed on May 21, 1984. That afternoon, Ruby Saenz, a Rockwell employee, left the Credit Union building carrying a briefcase containing $50,000 in $50 bills with which to…

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.