United States v. Rosa Reyes-Meza De Polanco

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Rosa Reyes-Meza De Polanco

422 F.2d 1304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1970

Docket23239_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 422 F.2d 1304 (United States v. Rosa Reyes-Meza De Polanco) 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. Rosa Reyes-Meza De Polanco, 422 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant raises two points upon her appeal from her conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 176a (smuggling marihuana) : (1) The record does not adequately demonstrate that appellant’s waiver of her right to jury trial was freely and voluntarily made, and (2) Section 176a is unconstitutional as applied to appellant, because had she complied with the federal statutes that would have made her importation legal (the disclosure and registration statutes, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1459, 1461, 1481(a) (3), 26 U.S.C. §§ 4751-4755), she would have potentially incriminated herself under state laws penalizing possession of marihuana.

Appellant and her trial counsel each signed a written form waiving trial by jury, but the District Court did not interrogate her personally about that waiver. She claims, on analogy to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, that in absence of such colloquy the record inadequately reflects a waiver as that term is defined in Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461. We disagree. (Pool v. United States (9th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 943, cert. denied (1965) 382 U.S. 832, 86 S.Ct. 73, 15 L.Ed.2d 76. Accord: Hatcher v. United States (1965) 122 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 352 F.2d 364, cert. denied (1966), 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 654, 15 L.Ed. 2d 542; Gauthier v. Burke (7th Cir. 1968) 402 F.2d 459.) The fact alone that an interpreter was appointed to assist her during the trial does not reduce the written waivers to silence. If, contrary to the recitations in the waivers signed by her and her counsel, she were not fully informed of her right to trial by jury in terms she could understand and if she did not knowingly and intelligently yield that right, those facts can be developed upon proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We have answered her second contention adversely to her in Witt v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 413 F.2d 303.

*1306 Court appointed counsel representing appellant on appeal deserves special commendation for the excellence of his presentation of the issues in this ease both on brief and in oral argument.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant raises two points upon her appeal from her conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 176a (smuggling marihuana) : (1) The record does not adequately demonstrate that appellant’s waiver of her right to jury trial was freely and voluntarily made, and (2) Section 176a is unconstitutional as applied to appellant, because had she complied with the federal statutes that would have made her importation legal (the disclosure and registration statutes, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1459, 1461, 1481(a) (3), 26 U.S.C. §§ 4751-4755), she would have potentially incriminated herself under state laws penalizing possession of marihuana.

Appellant and her trial counsel each signed a written form waiving trial by jury, but the District Court did not interrogate her personally about that waiver. She claims, on analogy to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, that in absence of such colloquy the record inadequately reflects a waiver as that term is defined in Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461. We disagree. (Pool v. United States (9th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 943, cert. denied (1965) 382 U.S. 832, 86 S.Ct. 73, 15 L.Ed.2d 76. Accord: Hatcher v. United States (1965) 122 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 352 F.2d 364, cert. denied (1966), 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 654, 15 L.Ed. 2d 542; Gauthier v. Burke (7th Cir. 1968) 402 F.2d 459.) The fact alone that an interpreter was appointed to assist her during the trial does not reduce the written waivers to silence. If, contrary to the recitations in the waivers signed by her and her counsel, she were not fully informed of her right to trial by jury in terms she could understand and if she did not knowingly and intelligently yield that right, those facts can be developed upon proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We have answered her second contention adversely to her in Witt v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 413 F.2d 303.

*1306 Court appointed counsel representing appellant on appeal deserves special commendation for the excellence of his presentation of the issues in this ease both on brief and in oral argument.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F.2d 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rosa-reyes-meza-de-polanco-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack