John Doherty v. United States

230 F.2d 605
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 14, 1956·No. 14811_1·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment of conviction in a narcotics case, 21 U.S.C. § 174, is predicated upon the assumption that the California rule declining to-credit testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated, is applicable in the Federal courts. Cal.Penal Code, § 1111; People v. Dail, 1943, 22 Cal.2d 642, 140 P.2d 828.

In the exercise of supervisory authority over rules governing the admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials, McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 341, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, the Supreme Court has held that corroboration is not essential. Caminetti v. United States, 1917, 242 U.S. 470, 495, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442; Holmgren v. United States, 1910, 217 U.S. 509, 523-524, 30 S.Ct. 588, 54 L.Ed. 861; cf. Krulewitch v. United States, 1949, 336 U.S. 440, 454, 69 S.Ct. 716, 93 L.Ed. 790.

It is settled in this circuit that, while received with caution and weighed with great care, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is to be accorded whatever credibility the trier of fact, may think it deserves. Catrino v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 884, 889; Todorow v. United States, 9 Cir., 173 F. 2d 439, 444 certiorari denied, 1949, 337 U.S. 925, 69 S.Ct. 1169, 93 L.Ed. 1733.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

John Doherty v. United States, 230 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1956).

230 F.2d 605 (John Doherty v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. James Allen Hibler
463 F.2d 455 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Donald Lannom v. United States
401 F.2d 504 (Ninth Circuit, 1968)
Hayes Henry Cheadle v. United States
370 F.2d 314 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
J. W. Williamson, Jr. v. United States
365 F.2d 12 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)
Anthony Marcella v. United States
285 F.2d 322 (Ninth Circuit, 1961)
Robert Edgar Channel v. United States
285 F.2d 217 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)
Thomas Ambrose v. United States
280 F.2d 766 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)
James Henry Audett v. United States
265 F.2d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 1959)
Jack Wayne Lyles v. United States
249 F.2d 744 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)