U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1969

William Clinton Gardner v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 3, 1969 · Chambers, Duniway, Per Curiam, Smith

415 F.2d 1139 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Arthur Mabry (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., Edward B. Frank (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Crim. Div., Howard B. Frank, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. William Clinton Gardner (9th Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The point on the method of search and seizure under a search warrant was not made before trial as required by Rule 41 (e) Fed.R.Crim.P. Late in the trial an issue of probable cause was tendered on the search warrant. Thus, the Government was not obligated to meet a challenge that was never made, i. e., method.

There were convictions on five counts. The sentences were wholly concurrent. On count, four, we find the case close on sufficiency of the evidence, but while we are authorized to consider the point, we still need not do it.

There was sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence to sustain the convictions on four counts.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.