United States v. Richard C. Barnes

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Richard C. Barnes

431 F.2d 878

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 22, 1970

Docket25707_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 431 F.2d 878 (United States v. Richard C. Barnes) 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. Richard C. Barnes, 431 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant was charged in Count One with offering a bribe of $100 to two immigration officials on May 26, 1969; and in Count Two with the giving of a bribe of $25 to an immigration official on June 23, 1969.

Appellant was convicted on Count Two and acquitted on Count One. He charges as error that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent; that the government split one crime into two counts improperly, that although this appellant was not in custody he was entitled to a Miranda type warning; and that the government failed to comply with local Rule 42, setting up a dead-line for notice to counsel of defendant’s admissions.

While we may compliment appellant’s counsel on the able and imaginative manner in which the alleged errors were urged, (a) we find no inconsistency in the two verdicts; (b) the government’s charge of two counts was proper (United States v. Michelson, 165 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir.), aff’d 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)); (c) a person is entitled to no warning during the commission of a crime (Grier v. United States, 345 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 1965); Feldstein v. United States, 429 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1970); and (d) Rule 42 expressly provides the trial court may excuse compliance with the rule which it here did.

We affirm the conviction.

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

BARNES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant was charged in Count One with offering a bribe of $100 to two immigration officials on May 26, 1969; and in Count Two with the giving of a bribe of $25 to an immigration official on June 23, 1969.

Appellant was convicted on Count Two and acquitted on Count One. He charges as error that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent; that the government split one crime into two counts improperly, that although this appellant was not in custody he was entitled to a Miranda type warning; and that the government failed to comply with local Rule 42, setting up a dead-line for notice to counsel of defendant’s admissions.

While we may compliment appellant’s counsel on the able and imaginative manner in which the alleged errors were urged, (a) we find no inconsistency in the two verdicts; (b) the government’s charge of two counts was proper (United States v. Michelson, 165 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir.), aff’d 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)); (c) a person is entitled to no warning during the commission of a crime (Grier v. United States, 345 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 1965); Feldstein v. United States, 429 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1970); and (d) Rule 42 expressly provides the trial court may excuse compliance with the rule which it here did.

We affirm the conviction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 F.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-c-barnes-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack