United States v. William Valencia

Second Circuit

United States v. William Valencia

677 F.2d 191

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 13, 1982·No. 367, Docket 81-1317·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinions

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:

On appellant’s original appeal, United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980), this Court remanded to the district court for a determination “whether there was sufficient evidence of direct communication between [appellant’s wife and appellant] to permit the question of inducement of [appellant] to go to the jury.” Id. at 1169. The district court held that there was not, and appellant concedes there was not.

But appellant had never argued that there was direct proof that Olga communicated the informer’s inducements to him, and, in fact, no such direct proof appears in the record. (Appellant’s Brief at 12.)

Appellant argues that the marital relationship and cohabitation of appellant and his wife permit the inference that appellant knew of the informer’s inducements. The district court held that proof of the marital relationship was not enough and that there was no other proof that the Government’s inducements had been communicated to appellant.

Finding no error, we affirm.

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

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:

On appellant’s original appeal, United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980), this Court remanded to the district court for a determination “whether there was sufficient evidence of direct communication between [appellant’s wife and appellant] to permit the question of inducement of [appellant] to go to the jury.” Id. at 1169. The district court held that there was not, and appellant concedes there was not.

But appellant had never argued that there was direct proof that Olga communicated the informer’s inducements to him, and, in fact, no such direct proof appears in the record. (Appellant’s Brief at 12.)

Appellant argues that the marital relationship and cohabitation of appellant and his wife permit the inference that appellant knew of the informer’s inducements. The district court held that proof of the marital relationship was not enough and that there was no other proof that the Government’s inducements had been communicated to appellant.

Finding no error, we affirm.

United States v. William Valencia, 677 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1982).

Pincite

677 F.2d 191 (United States v. William Valencia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related