United States v. Benjamin Stagg

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Benjamin Stagg

540 F.2d 1010

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 1976

Docket75-3013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 540 F.2d 1010 (United States v. Benjamin Stagg) 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 v. Benjamin Stagg, 540 F.2d 1010 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stagg’s six-count conviction for conspiracy and for possessing and distributing co *1011 caine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), is remanded for a new trial. United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc).

The district court, believing at the time of trial that it was bound by Eastman v. United States, 212 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1954), did not permit Stagg to present his tendered entrapment defense until after he took the stand and admitted the conduct described by the government’s witnesses.

In United States v. Demma, supra, decided after this case was tried, we held that the Eastman rule was inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions on entrapment. We overruled Eastman without indicating whether Demma should apply to pending cases. We did point out, however, that the rule in Demma was not a declaration of a new rule of law, but merely a correction of an aberration which began with Eastman. Accordingly, there is no reason for refusing to apply Demma to cases pending on appeal at the time Demma was decided. United States v. Hart (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).

Vacated and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

Stagg’s six-count conviction for conspiracy and for possessing and distributing co *1011 caine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), is remanded for a new trial. United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc).

The district court, believing at the time of trial that it was bound by Eastman v. United States, 212 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1954), did not permit Stagg to present his tendered entrapment defense until after he took the stand and admitted the conduct described by the government’s witnesses.

In United States v. Demma, supra, decided after this case was tried, we held that the Eastman rule was inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions on entrapment. We overruled Eastman without indicating whether Demma should apply to pending cases. We did point out, however, that the rule in Demma was not a declaration of a new rule of law, but merely a correction of an aberration which began with Eastman. Accordingly, there is no reason for refusing to apply Demma to cases pending on appeal at the time Demma was decided. United States v. Hart (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 F.2d 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-benjamin-stagg-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack