Richard Paul Ward v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Richard Paul Ward v. United States

368 F.2d 569, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4452

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 1966

Docket20903_1

StatusPublished

This text of 368 F.2d 569 (Richard Paul Ward 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

Richard Paul Ward v. United States, 368 F.2d 569, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4452 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Richard Paul Ward was tried by a jury and convicted on three counts of an indictment charging violations of the narcotics laws of the United States. He appeals, contending that: (1) he had ineffective representation by counsel at his trial because his counsel was denied adequate time to prepare for trial; (2) there was prejudicial misconduct by the deputy United States Attorney who attempted to put into evidence, as an exhibit, marijuana which was not connected with any of the charges against Ward; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

*570 Ward was represented by counsel at the argument in this court. We accordingly deny Ward’s motion for an order directing that the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, who has custody of Ward, produce him in court at the time of argument.

We have examined each of the arguments advanced on behalf of Ward on this appeal and find all of them to be without merit. The judgment of conviction is therefore

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Richard Paul Ward was tried by a jury and convicted on three counts of an indictment charging violations of the narcotics laws of the United States. He appeals, contending that: (1) he had ineffective representation by counsel at his trial because his counsel was denied adequate time to prepare for trial; (2) there was prejudicial misconduct by the deputy United States Attorney who attempted to put into evidence, as an exhibit, marijuana which was not connected with any of the charges against Ward; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

*570 Ward was represented by counsel at the argument in this court. We accordingly deny Ward’s motion for an order directing that the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, who has custody of Ward, produce him in court at the time of argument.

We have examined each of the arguments advanced on behalf of Ward on this appeal and find all of them to be without merit. The judgment of conviction is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 569, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-paul-ward-v-united-states-ca9-1966.