Steven B. Medved v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Steven B. Medved v. United States

411 F.2d 617, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12342

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1969

Docket22513

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 617 (Steven B. Medved 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

Steven B. Medved v. United States, 411 F.2d 617, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12342 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After having filed schedules in bankruptcy, the appellant was convicted of having unlawfully concealed certain of his property from the Trustee in Bankruptcy. 18 U.S.C. § 152. On this appeal, Medved presents three contentions. The first is that certain statements given by him to a government investigator were improperly admitted into evidence because the investigator did not adequately warn Medved of the latter’s constitutional rights before the statements were taken. The contention is without merit. In his brief, Medved recites that the questioning occurred “while he was not in custody,” and this is the fact. See, Boyle v. United States, 395 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1089, 89 S.Ct. 861, 21 L.Ed.2d 782 (1969); Whitfield v. United States, 383 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1967). See also, Kohatsu v. United States, 351 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1011, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 1017, rehearing denied, 385 U.S. 891, 87 S.Ct. 15, 17 L. Ed.2d 122 (1966).

The appellant’s second and third points challenge, respectively, the district judge’s failure to accept and present a part of one of the jury instructions which Medved proffered and an alleged imperfection in a presented instruction undertaking to define “reasonable doubt.” We reject these contentions also. The instructions must be viewed as a whole, and, we, so viewing them, are convinced that they cannot be held to have operated, unfairly and prejudicially, to appellant’s disadvantage.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

After having filed schedules in bankruptcy, the appellant was convicted of having unlawfully concealed certain of his property from the Trustee in Bankruptcy. 18 U.S.C. § 152. On this appeal, Medved presents three contentions. The first is that certain statements given by him to a government investigator were improperly admitted into evidence because the investigator did not adequately warn Medved of the latter’s constitutional rights before the statements were taken. The contention is without merit. In his brief, Medved recites that the questioning occurred “while he was not in custody,” and this is the fact. See, Boyle v. United States, 395 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1089, 89 S.Ct. 861, 21 L.Ed.2d 782 (1969); Whitfield v. United States, 383 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1967). See also, Kohatsu v. United States, 351 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1011, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 1017, rehearing denied, 385 U.S. 891, 87 S.Ct. 15, 17 L. Ed.2d 122 (1966).

The appellant’s second and third points challenge, respectively, the district judge’s failure to accept and present a part of one of the jury instructions which Medved proffered and an alleged imperfection in a presented instruction undertaking to define “reasonable doubt.” We reject these contentions also. The instructions must be viewed as a whole, and, we, so viewing them, are convinced that they cannot be held to have operated, unfairly and prejudicially, to appellant’s disadvantage.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 617, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-b-medved-v-united-states-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack