JOSE PARRA MACHADO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the officer's prior examination of the defendant's photograph did not taint his subsequent identification of the defendant.
The defendant fled from border patrol, leaving behind a car with marijuana and his wallet containing an immigration card with his picture. Three years…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process In Identification Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:
The sufficiency of the evidence in this marijuana smuggling ease is not questioned.
Machado, in 1965, under questioning at the San Ysidro border station, decided to flee back to Mexico. His flight was successful, but he had left behind an Oldsmobile car with 70 pounds of marijuana in it and his wallet with his alien immigration card in it. This has his picture on it.
Three years later, Machado came back to the American side to get his immigration card. And, he thus walked into the hands of the federal officers. He had an alibi about loss of the card, which has obviously been rejected.
Officer Mullen in 1965 carefully studied Machado’s picture on the card after Machado fled. Mullen did not see the picture again.
After Machado was arrested in 1968, Mullen saw Machado in a lineup and identified him on the basis of memory. He also identified Machado in court. Somehow, says Machado, Mullen’s taking time to examine (memorize) the picture Machado left behind poisons the subsequent identification. And, apparently Mullen made no studied effort to confuse himself. We do not think Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, or any other case required Officer Mullen to do a thing different from what he did.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Dryden, 423 F.2d 1175 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
United States v. Whitehead, 424 F.2d 446 (6th Cir. 1970)
-
Whatley v. United States, 428 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)