Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1973

United States of America, and v. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And

United States of America, and v. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 7, 1973 · Chambers, Trask, Byrne
472 F.2d 597 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge Lewis A. Wenzell (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant and appellant., Douglas G. Hendricks, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff and appellee.

United States of America, and v. Vicente Baltierra-Frausto, And

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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:

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.

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