Edward Worth Menefield and Mary Thompson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Edward Worth Menefield and Mary Thompson v. United States

355 F.2d 662

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1966

Docket20213_1

StatusPublished

This text of 355 F.2d 662 (Edward Worth Menefield and Mary Thompson 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

Edward Worth Menefield and Mary Thompson v. United States, 355 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

*663 PER CURIAM.

From our examination of the record, we cannot overturn as clearly erroneous the finding of the trial court that consent to a search which turned up important real evidence was freely given. Appellants attack the evidence obtained and assert that it was the fruit of an illegal arrest. This is only important if the consent was not freely given. Davis v. State of California, 9 Cir., 341 F.2d 982, 985.

Certain statements of defendants made concurrent with the arrest were admitted in evidence. The circumstances of the arrest were not shocking. No Sixth Amendment grounds were asserted at the trial. In our judgment, in the setting here, the principles applied in Es-cobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, are not applicable.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

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

*663 PER CURIAM.

From our examination of the record, we cannot overturn as clearly erroneous the finding of the trial court that consent to a search which turned up important real evidence was freely given. Appellants attack the evidence obtained and assert that it was the fruit of an illegal arrest. This is only important if the consent was not freely given. Davis v. State of California, 9 Cir., 341 F.2d 982, 985.

Certain statements of defendants made concurrent with the arrest were admitted in evidence. The circumstances of the arrest were not shocking. No Sixth Amendment grounds were asserted at the trial. In our judgment, in the setting here, the principles applied in Es-cobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, are not applicable.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-worth-menefield-and-mary-thompson-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack