FRED R. MORALES, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1967-02-15
No. 21215
Before CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, JONES, Judge of the Court of Claims, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
373 F.2d 527 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1967) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the defendant could not complain about incriminating statements being admitted after his counsel raised the issue at the second trial.


Facts & Procedural History

Following a prior reversal, the defendant was retried and convicted of narcotics offenses. The defendant appealed, arguing the judge should have held …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

After our reversal, Morales v. United States, 9 Cir., 344 F. 2d 846, this narcotics case was retried before a jury and another conviction resulted.

The one point of substance on this appeal is whether the second judge should have held a hearing out of the presence of the jury as to the reliability and voluntariness of a confession or incriminating statements. The government makes a good argument that the hearings associated with the first trial were enough. However, we find that in the second trial it was defendant’s counsel that opened up the subject of what Morales said to the officers. Thus, appellant cannot be heard to now complain about his statements getting all over the record.

Another point, full advice of his rights at the threshold of contact with the officers, made by Morales is foreclosed by Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.

A third point made here we do not believe was raised at the trial, and we do not consider it here.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw