United States v. Richard Sonny Nero

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Richard Sonny Nero

433 F.2d 350, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6775

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1970

Docket24490_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 433 F.2d 350 (United States v. Richard Sonny Nero) 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 Sonny Nero, 433 F.2d 350, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6775 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Nero appeals from his conviction on two counts charging him with the unlawful sale of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 174.

Nero challenges the constitutionality of the presumption prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 174, but the validity of the presumption, as applied to the possession of heroin, has been established. Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).

Nero’s second contention involves certain statements claimed to have been made by Nero’s co-defendant, Clarence Williams. Williams was also convicted, and his appeal to our court was unsuccessful. United States v. Williams, 423 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970). Nero argues that Williams’ statements were improperly admitted into evidence through the testimony of a federal narcotics agent and that, since Williams did not testify, there was infringement of Nero’s confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

We find it unnecessary to detail the statements in question. If they could be so interpreted as to implicate Nero at all, which is questionable, their incriminating effect, as .to him, was so insignificant that their admission was harmless beyond all reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Nero appeals from his conviction on two counts charging him with the unlawful sale of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 174.

Nero challenges the constitutionality of the presumption prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 174, but the validity of the presumption, as applied to the possession of heroin, has been established. Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).

Nero’s second contention involves certain statements claimed to have been made by Nero’s co-defendant, Clarence Williams. Williams was also convicted, and his appeal to our court was unsuccessful. United States v. Williams, 423 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970). Nero argues that Williams’ statements were improperly admitted into evidence through the testimony of a federal narcotics agent and that, since Williams did not testify, there was infringement of Nero’s confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

We find it unnecessary to detail the statements in question. If they could be so interpreted as to implicate Nero at all, which is questionable, their incriminating effect, as .to him, was so insignificant that their admission was harmless beyond all reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 F.2d 350, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-sonny-nero-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack