U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

United States of America, and v. William Ferrell Porter

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 23, 1970 · Chambers, Merrill, Per Curiam, Wollenberg

432 F.2d 548 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Michael S. N. Johnson (argued), San Francisco, Cal., Wm. Ferrell Porter, in pro. per., for appellant., Richard V. Boulger (argued), Ass’t. U. S. Atty., Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., Fresno, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. John H. Jansen (7th Cir. 1973)

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.

On the point of full disclosure of the prosecutor’s file, defendant is concluded by Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287. See *549 also Edmondson v. United States, 10 Cir., 402 F.2d 809. The jury instructions to which defendant objects have been approved in our Jones v. United States, 9 Cir., 378 F.2d 340.

We find the early questioning without Miranda warnings were all pre-custody, arrest or restraint.

In closing argument, the prosecutor commented on defendant not telling the F.B.I. the story he told on the witness stand. But he did talk at the interview, and what he said was inconsistent with his later story. We think here the comment was inept, but we do not find it plain error. The argument was to some extent factually incorrect. The jury probably knew it to be so.

Counsel for defendant has presented an able brief, but we simply cannot agree with it.

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