Fred R. Morales v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Fred R. Morales v. United States

373 F.2d 527

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1967

Docket21215_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 373 F.2d 527 (Fred R. Morales 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

Fred R. Morales v. United States, 373 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After our reversal, Morales v. United States, 9 Cir., 344 F.2d 846, this narcotics case was retried before a jury and another conviction resulted.

The one point of substance on this appeal is whether the second judge should have held a hearing out of the presence of the jury as to the reliability and voluntariness of a confession or incriminating statements. The government makes a good argument that the hearings associated with the first trial were enough. However, we find that in the second trial it was defendant’s counsel that opened up the subject of what Morales said to the officers. Thus, appellant cannot be heard to now complain about his statements getting all over the record.

Another point, full advice of his rights at the threshold of contact with the officers, made by Morales is foreclosed by Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.

A third point made here we do not believe was raised at the trial, and we do not consider it here.

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

PER CURIAM:

After our reversal, Morales v. United States, 9 Cir., 344 F.2d 846, this narcotics case was retried before a jury and another conviction resulted.

The one point of substance on this appeal is whether the second judge should have held a hearing out of the presence of the jury as to the reliability and voluntariness of a confession or incriminating statements. The government makes a good argument that the hearings associated with the first trial were enough. However, we find that in the second trial it was defendant’s counsel that opened up the subject of what Morales said to the officers. Thus, appellant cannot be heard to now complain about his statements getting all over the record.

Another point, full advice of his rights at the threshold of contact with the officers, made by Morales is foreclosed by Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.

A third point made here we do not believe was raised at the trial, and we do not consider it here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 F.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-r-morales-v-united-states-ca9-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack