United States v. Martin Phillip Franz, Defendat-Appellant

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Martin Phillip Franz, Defendat-Appellant

469 F.2d 76, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7379

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 28, 1972

Docket72-1705

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 469 F.2d 76 (United States v. Martin Phillip Franz, Defendat-Appellant) 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. Martin Phillip Franz, Defendat-Appellant, 469 F.2d 76, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7379 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The District Court did not err in ruling that appellant’s codefendant was entitled to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The testimony sought would have incriminated the codefendant beyond the charge to which he had pleaded guilty.

With respect to appellant’s contention that he was denied the right to comment to the jury on his codefendant’s failure to testify, there is no indication in the record that he requested such a right.

It was not error to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting in the light of the evidence introduced. Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1970).

It was not error to fail to instruct respecting statements of appellant’s accomplice. There is no evidence that such statements were received in evidence. There was no request for such an instruction.

We find no error in denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial.

Judgment affirmed.

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