Home/Ninth Circuit/United States v. Manuel Gonzales

United States v. Manuel Gonzales

424 F.2d 1055, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9751
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 16, 1970
Docket24897
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 424 F.2d 1055 (United States v. Manuel Gonzales) 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. Manuel Gonzales, 424 F.2d 1055, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9751 (9th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Gonzales was convicted by a jury for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, conspiring to smuggle marihuana into the United States. Following sentence, he appeals.

Gonzales claims that § 176a violates his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. No record was made below to support this claim.

Section 176a, in prohibiting smuggling marihuana into the United States, does not violate a defendant’s privilege against self-incriminaton. Witt v. United States, (9 Cir. 1969) 413 F.2d 303; McClain v. United States, (9 Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 489; United States v. Scott, (9 Cir. 1970) 425 F.2d 55; Plascencia-Plascencia v. United States, (9 Cir. 1970), 423 F.2d 802; United States v. Simon, (9 Cir. 1970), 424 F.2d 1049.

The same rule would apply to a charge of conspiracy to smuggle marihuana. There is no merit to the contention.

Gonzales next claims error where a juror submitted a question to the court and the court asked several questions of a witness. This was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Rogers v. Wong
637 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. California, 2009)
United States v. Rawlings
522 F.3d 403 (D.C. Circuit, 2008)
Medina v. People
114 P.3d 845 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2005)
Landt v. State
87 P.3d 73 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 2004)
Coates v. State
855 So. 2d 223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
State v. Fisher
789 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)
State v. Culkin
35 P.3d 233 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2001)
United States v. Hernandez
Third Circuit, 1999
United States v. Julio Hernandez
176 F.3d 719 (Third Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Herbert Marvin Feinberg
89 F.3d 333 (Seventh Circuit, 1996)
State v. Graves
907 P.2d 963 (Montana Supreme Court, 1995)
United States v. Gary Bush
47 F.3d 511 (Second Circuit, 1995)
State v. Hays
883 P.2d 1093 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1994)
United States v. Ross Huebner, United States of America v. John Williams
16 F.3d 348 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Morrison v. State
845 S.W.2d 882 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
United States v. Arthur Sutton
970 F.2d 1001 (First Circuit, 1992)
State v. Zima
468 N.W.2d 377 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1991)
Allen v. State
807 S.W.2d 639 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Yeager v. Greene
502 A.2d 980 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1985)
United States v. Dan Callahan
588 F.2d 1078 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
424 F.2d 1055, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-manuel-gonzales-ca9-1970.