Thomas Clayton Sanders v. United States

373 F.2d 735, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7345
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 1967
Docket20814
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 373 F.2d 735 (Thomas Clayton Sanders 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
Thomas Clayton Sanders v. United States, 373 F.2d 735, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7345 (9th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In our opinion there is more than sufficient evidence in the record to convict appellant of the charge made against him (18 U.S.C. § 2421, interstate transportation of a woman for purposes of prostitution).

The sufficiency of the evidence to convict, however, is not the question before us. Government counsel asked one of two witnesses, who claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege, at least fifty-five questions, of which at least ten questions might well, if answered, have incriminated the witness. The second witness, claiming her Fifth Amendment privilege, was asked very few questions.

We conclude that the facts and procedures in this case do not fall within the rule of Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963), but do come within the reasoning underlying Fletcher v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 332 F.2d 724 (1964).

Without attempting to particularize, we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case, viewed in their entirety, inferences from Charlotte Ann Currin’s refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination, *736 and thus prejudiced appellant Sanders. These inferences affected his substantial rights.

The judgment of the district court, therefore, must be reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Huff v. State
678 So. 2d 293 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1995)
Cunningham v. Commonwealth
344 S.E.2d 389 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1986)
McBride v. State
477 A.2d 174 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1984)
United States v. Patricia Campbell Hearst
563 F.2d 1331 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
Burkley v. United States
373 A.2d 878 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)
Shockley v. State
335 So. 2d 659 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
United States v. Cyrus T. Anderson
509 F.2d 312 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Elgie Roberts
503 F.2d 598 (Ninth Circuit, 1975)
Commonwealth v. Duval
307 A.2d 229 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
United States v. Frank Richard Coppola
479 F.2d 1153 (Tenth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Roselli
432 F.2d 879 (Ninth Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Pasqual William Ceniceros
427 F.2d 685 (Ninth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 F.2d 735, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-clayton-sanders-v-united-states-ca9-1967.