United States v. Crawford

Second Circuit

United States v. Crawford

386 F.2d 451

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1967

DocketNo. 234, Docket 31561

StatusPublished

This text of 386 F.2d 451 (United States v. Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Crawford, 386 F.2d 451 (2d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM;

After a trial without a jury before Judge Edward Weinfeld of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, appellants were convicted of a narcotics violation under 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The appellants claim several errors in the proceedings below; we have considered these claims and find them without merit. We note, particularly, that Judge Weinfeld found as a fact that before defendant Crawford was asked to consent to a search he was “fully advised” of his constitutional rights. Cf. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Moreover, appellants did not argue in the district court that Crawford at that time was not given a proper warning under Miranda, United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965) (en banc), cert. denied. 383 U.S. 907, 86 S.Ct. 887, 15 L.Ed.2d 663 (1966).

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM;

After a trial without a jury before Judge Edward Weinfeld of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, appellants were convicted of a narcotics violation under 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The appellants claim several errors in the proceedings below; we have considered these claims and find them without merit. We note, particularly, that Judge Weinfeld found as a fact that before defendant Crawford was asked to consent to a search he was “fully advised” of his constitutional rights. Cf. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Moreover, appellants did not argue in the district court that Crawford at that time was not given a proper warning under Miranda, United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965) (en banc), cert. denied. 383 U.S. 907, 86 S.Ct. 887, 15 L.Ed.2d 663 (1966).

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 F.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-crawford-ca2-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack