This case of conspiracy to import marijuana is affirmed. The whole defense concerned the admission into evidence of the defendant’s oral confession. We find the ruling admitting the statements was quite proper. The Miranda warning was adequate and given twice. On the first warning, the waiver was equivocal. But the oral waiver was not equivocal on the second warning. There was no duty to give a third warning or to lecture the defendant on the elements of the warning.

Therefore, the trial judge’s hearing of some evidence from the co-defendant with Baltierra-Frausto absent was not prejudicial, although it was improper procedure. Cf. Singleton v. United States, 381 F.2d 1, 9 Cir., 1967, cert. denied 389 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 601, 19 L.Ed.2d 673, 1967.