United States of America, and v. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And

Ninth Circuit

United States of America, and v. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And

472 F.2d 597

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 1973

Docket72-2946

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 472 F.2d 597 (United States of America, and v. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And) 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. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And, 472 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case of conspiracy to import marijuana is affirmed. The whole defense concerned the admission into evidence of the defendant’s oral confession. We find the ruling admitting the statements was quite proper. The Miranda warning was adequate and given twice. On the first warning, the waiver was equivocal. But the oral waiver was not equivocal on the second warning. There was no duty to give a third warning or to lecture the defendant on the elements of the warning.

Therefore, the trial judge’s hearing of some evidence from the co-defendant with Baltierra-Frausto absent was not prejudicial, although it was improper procedure. Cf. Singleton v. United States, 381 F.2d 1, 9 Cir., 1967, cert. denied 389 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 601, 19 L.Ed.2d 673, 1967.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case of conspiracy to import marijuana is affirmed. The whole defense concerned the admission into evidence of the defendant’s oral confession. We find the ruling admitting the statements was quite proper. The Miranda warning was adequate and given twice. On the first warning, the waiver was equivocal. But the oral waiver was not equivocal on the second warning. There was no duty to give a third warning or to lecture the defendant on the elements of the warning.

Therefore, the trial judge’s hearing of some evidence from the co-defendant with Baltierra-Frausto absent was not prejudicial, although it was improper procedure. Cf. Singleton v. United States, 381 F.2d 1, 9 Cir., 1967, cert. denied 389 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 601, 19 L.Ed.2d 673, 1967.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 F.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-and-v-vicente-baltierra-frausto-and-ca9-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack