United States of America, and v. Robert Bender

Ninth Circuit

United States of America, and v. Robert Bender

457 F.2d 801, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10651

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1972

Docket71-1782

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 801 (United States of America, and v. Robert Bender) 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

United States of America, and v. Robert Bender, 457 F.2d 801, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10651 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2312, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. He is appealing that decision. We find his arguments to be without merit.

Appellant argues that he was denied due process of law because the district court’s Local Rule 42 was violated. Rule 42 requires the government attorney to furnish defense counsel, at least fifteen days before trial, with “all written or oral confessions, admissions, or statements of the defendant which the government intends to use during the course of the trial.” Assuming, arguendo, that Rule 42 was violated, this is not cause for reversal since there is no evidence that that “violation” in any way prejudiced the appellant.

Appellant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The heart of this claim is that he was improperly advised not to testify in his own behalf. This theory was first advanced in appellant’s motion for a new [802]*802trial; at that time it was rejected. We do not think the trial judge erred in rejecting this claim.

We affirm.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2312, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. He is appealing that decision. We find his arguments to be without merit.

Appellant argues that he was denied due process of law because the district court’s Local Rule 42 was violated. Rule 42 requires the government attorney to furnish defense counsel, at least fifteen days before trial, with “all written or oral confessions, admissions, or statements of the defendant which the government intends to use during the course of the trial.” Assuming, arguendo, that Rule 42 was violated, this is not cause for reversal since there is no evidence that that “violation” in any way prejudiced the appellant.

Appellant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The heart of this claim is that he was improperly advised not to testify in his own behalf. This theory was first advanced in appellant’s motion for a new [802]*802trial; at that time it was rejected. We do not think the trial judge erred in rejecting this claim.

We affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 801, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-and-v-robert-bender-ca9-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack