United States v. Lee Howard Montgomery, Howard Lee Montgomery, AKA Lee Howard Montgomery v. United States

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 8980·998 F.2d 1468·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 17198·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5310
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 13, 199389-50592, 91-55512California6,486 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

Howard Lee Montgomery appeals his conviction of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. Montgomery also appeals the denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . His main contention in both appeals is that the government did not use “reasonable efforts” to produce a confidential informant for a pretrial interview, thereby violating his right to due process of law. Montgomery’s habeas appeal has been consolidated with the direct appeal from his convictions.

In addition to his allegation that the government failed to use “reasonable efforts” to produce the confidential informant, Montgomery also asserts two other grounds for reversing, his convictions: (1) the government’s failure to produce the confidential in-formánt violated the strictures of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it refused to limit the government’s cross-examination of Montgomery to questions not concerned with the identification of sources, and then ordered Montgomery’s testimony stricken from the record when he refused to answer such…

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.