Lightbourne

United States v. Lightbourne

Good Law
104 F.3d 1172·97 Daily Journal DAR 627·1997 WL 13689·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 611·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 394
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 16, 1997Nos. 96-30002, 96-30003, 96-30012California3,171 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Noonan, J.

In these consolidated cases Jon Lightb-ourne (Jon), Richard Lightboume (Richard) and Valerie Lightboume (Valerie) appeal their convictions of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute N, N-dimethylampheta-mine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. All three defendants challenge the sufficiency of the search warrant underlying the discovery of their conspiracy. Richard and Valerie, who are husband and wife, argue that while they chose to have a single lawyer represent them at trial, .their interests were in conflict and they should have had different counsel. Valerie challenges her sentence which is based on all drags attributable to the conspiracy and enhanced by the presence of a firearm on the headboard of her bed.

Holding that the search warrant was based on an adequate showing of probable cause, that husband and wife freely and knowingly waived any conflict of interest on the part of their counsel, and that Valerie was responsible for all the drags and for the gun, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

FACTS

On September 27, 1990 Deputy Sheriff Kenneth D. Sukert sought the assistance of the appropriate county attorneys to prepare, and then ,file,…

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.