Eddie Pool v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Eddie Pool v. United States

404 F.2d 570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1969

Docket22485

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 404 F.2d 570 (Eddie Pool v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eddie Pool v. United States, 404 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried to the court on a stipulation of facts and convicted of violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174. We affirmed the conviction on appeal. Pool v. United States, 344 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1965). Appellant filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.

Our prior opinion disposes of appellant’s contention that his waiver of a jury was invalid under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(a) because not “in writing,” and we agree with the district court that appellant’s challenge to the validity of the judgment based upon a one-month delay between arrest and indictment was without merit.

All of the remaining grounds for relief asserted in appellant’s petition rest ultimately upon his assertion that he did not knowingly and voluntarily relinquish his right to a jury trial, to the confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and to the exclusion from use against him of matter obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Contrary to the district court’s apparent holding, an accused’s voluntary intoxication may prevent a finding of the requisite waiver. See Gladden v. Unsworth, 396 F.2d 373, 380-381 (9th Cir. 1968). We think appellant’s allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the signing of the stipulation of facts and its use in lieu of testimony require an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant knew of his rights and intentionally relinquished them. Cf. Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried to the court on a stipulation of facts and convicted of violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174. We affirmed the conviction on appeal. Pool v. United States, 344 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1965). Appellant filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.

Our prior opinion disposes of appellant’s contention that his waiver of a jury was invalid under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(a) because not “in writing,” and we agree with the district court that appellant’s challenge to the validity of the judgment based upon a one-month delay between arrest and indictment was without merit.

All of the remaining grounds for relief asserted in appellant’s petition rest ultimately upon his assertion that he did not knowingly and voluntarily relinquish his right to a jury trial, to the confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and to the exclusion from use against him of matter obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Contrary to the district court’s apparent holding, an accused’s voluntary intoxication may prevent a finding of the requisite waiver. See Gladden v. Unsworth, 396 F.2d 373, 380-381 (9th Cir. 1968). We think appellant’s allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the signing of the stipulation of facts and its use in lieu of testimony require an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant knew of his rights and intentionally relinquished them. Cf. Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 F.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-pool-v-united-states-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack