UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
BRIGIDO SANCHEZ-MATA, APPELLANT
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 immigration officers' stop and interrogation were lawful, the conversations were not hearsay, evidence of simultaneous violations was admissible, the requested instruction was properly refused, and the statute's constitutionality was not a valid claim.
Immigration officers stopped a car driven by the defendant and interrogated the occupants. The defendant was transporting an alien, and evidence regar…
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 Jury'S Role As Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Immigration officers lawfully stopped the ear driven by the defendant and lawfully interrogated the persons therein. Title 8, U.S.C., See. 1357.
The conversations with the backseat aliens were in the presence of the defendant and were not hearsay.
The evidence as to whether Sandoval (the illegally transported alien) was illegally in the Country was conflicting and was resolved by the jury whose verdict as triers of the fact this appellate court will not disturb. The admission of the evidence of simultaneous violations of transporting other aliens was net error. Gianotos v. United States (9 Cir. 1939), 104 F. 2d 929; Schwartz v. United States (9 Cir. 1947), 160 F. 2d 718; Parker v. United States (9 Cir. 1968), 400 F. 2d 248, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1097, 89 S.Ct. 892, 21 L.Ed.2d 789.
The orally requested instruction was properly refused. F.R.Crim.P. 30; Local Rules, District of Arizona No. 25. Moreover, the subject of the orally requested instruction was fully covered by the instructions given.
The claim of unconstitutionality of Title 8, U.S.C., Sec. 1324(a) (2), is frivolous. Herrera v. United States (9 Cir. 1953), 208 F. 2d 215, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 529, 98 L.Ed. 1080; Bland v. United States (5 Cir. 1962), 299 F. 2d 105, hold the statute is valid.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1973)
-
United States v. Germaine Haili, 443 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Terrazas-Carrasco, 861 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1988)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. United States, 400 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Bland v. United States, 299 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Schwartz v. United States, 160 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1947)
- Pope v. United States, 393 U.S. 1097 (U.S. 1969)
- Parker v. United States, 393 U.S. 1097 (U.S. 1969)
- Gianotos v. United States, 104 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1939)
- Herrera v. United States, 208 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1953)
- McFee v. United States, 347 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1954)
- Ricker v. United States, 347 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1954)