United States v. Brigido Sanchez-Mata

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Brigido Sanchez-Mata

429 F.2d 1391, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 1970

Docket25304_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 1391 (United States v. Brigido Sanchez-Mata) 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. Brigido Sanchez-Mata, 429 F.2d 1391, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7895 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Immigration officers lawfully stopped the ear driven by the defendant and lawfully interrogated the persons therein. Title 8, U.S.C., See. 1357.

The conversations with the backseat aliens were in the presence of the defendant and were not hearsay.

The evidence as to whether Sandoval (the illegally transported alien) was illegally in the Country was conflicting and was resolved by the jury whose verdict as triers of the fact this appellate court will not disturb. The admission of the evidence of simultaneous violations of transporting other aliens was net error. Gianotos v. United States (9 Cir. 1939), 104 F.2d 929; Schwartz v. United States (9 Cir. 1947), 160 F.2d 718; Parker v. United States (9 Cir. 1968), 400 F.2d 248, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1097, 89 S.Ct. 892, 21 L.Ed.2d 789.

The orally requested instruction was properly refused. F.R.Crim.P. 30; Local Rules, District of Arizona No. 25. Moreover, the subject of the orally requested instruction was fully covered by the instructions given.

The claim of unconstitutionality of Title 8, U.S.C., Sec. 1324(a) (2), is frivolous. Herrera v. United States (9 Cir. 1953), 208 F.2d 215, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 529, 98 L.Ed. 1080; Bland v. United States (5 Cir. 1962), 299 F.2d 105, hold the statute is valid.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Immigration officers lawfully stopped the ear driven by the defendant and lawfully interrogated the persons therein. Title 8, U.S.C., See. 1357.

The conversations with the backseat aliens were in the presence of the defendant and were not hearsay.

The evidence as to whether Sandoval (the illegally transported alien) was illegally in the Country was conflicting and was resolved by the jury whose verdict as triers of the fact this appellate court will not disturb. The admission of the evidence of simultaneous violations of transporting other aliens was net error. Gianotos v. United States (9 Cir. 1939), 104 F.2d 929; Schwartz v. United States (9 Cir. 1947), 160 F.2d 718; Parker v. United States (9 Cir. 1968), 400 F.2d 248, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1097, 89 S.Ct. 892, 21 L.Ed.2d 789.

The orally requested instruction was properly refused. F.R.Crim.P. 30; Local Rules, District of Arizona No. 25. Moreover, the subject of the orally requested instruction was fully covered by the instructions given.

The claim of unconstitutionality of Title 8, U.S.C., Sec. 1324(a) (2), is frivolous. Herrera v. United States (9 Cir. 1953), 208 F.2d 215, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 529, 98 L.Ed. 1080; Bland v. United States (5 Cir. 1962), 299 F.2d 105, hold the statute is valid.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 1391, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brigido-sanchez-mata-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack