From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 27, 1970
423 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970)

Summary

finding no error in admission of statements that did not implicate appellant

Summary of this case from United States v. Olivas

Opinion

No. 24503.

March 24, 1970. Rehearing Denied April 27, 1970.

Henry Florence (argued) Karl N. Stewart, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.

Joe Jenckes (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Philip Malinsky, Asst. U.S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MERRILL, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.


The constitutionality of the presumption of knowledge of importation drawn from the fact of possession of heroin has been settled in Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).

There was ample evidence of dominion and control to present a jury question as to whether appellant had constructive possession.

We find no basis for reversal under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), respecting testimony as to statements made by appellant's codefendant. The statements were made during the commission of the crime, Kay v. United States, 421 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1970), and do not appear in any way to have implicated appellant.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 27, 1970
423 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970)

finding no error in admission of statements that did not implicate appellant

Summary of this case from United States v. Olivas
Case details for

United States v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence WILLIAMS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 27, 1970

Citations

423 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

Williams v. United States

In March of 1969, Williams was convicted under two separate counts of selling and facilitating the sale of…

United States v. Olivas

Nor were the statements unduly prejudicial, as they did not directly implicate Olivas. See United States v.…