United States v. Amado Duran Campos, 362 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Amado Duran Campos, 362 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States of America Ex Rel. Theodore R. Lewis v. Frank J. Pate, Warden (ca7, 1971-07-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America Ex Rel. Theodore R. Lewis v. Frank J. Pate, Warden
7th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
La Brasca v. Misterly, 423 F.2d 708, 709-710 (9th Cir. 1970); Sellers v. Smith, 412 F.2d 1002, 1005 (5th Cir. 1969); Lundberg v. Buchkoe, 389 F.2d 154, 156-157 (6th Cir. 1968); Williams v. Anderson, 362 F.2d 1011, 1012 (3rd Cir. 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 601 , 17 L.Ed.2d 449 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." General Railway Signal Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
D.D.C. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Crowder v. U. S., 255 F.Supp. 873 (D.C.Cal.1964), affirmed 362 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1966).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States ex rel. Royster v. McMann
E.D.N.Y · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Williams v. Anderson, 362 F.2d 1011, 1012 (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 988 , 87 S.Ct. 601 , 17 L.Ed.2d 449 (1966) (“undisputed facts make it very clear that there was no issue in this trial with respect to the voluntariness of the confession”); Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151 , 348 F.2d 763, 766 (1965) (“factual bases of a voluntariness objection are always to be first explored out of the presence of the jury * * * unless it is clear that the objection is wholly frivolous”); cf. Tooisgah v. United States, 137 F.2d 713, 716 (10th Cir. 1943); Gibson…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Copeland
S.D.N.Y. · 1967 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Campos, 255 F.Supp. 853, 855-56 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d, 362 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 842 , 87 S.Ct. 95 , 17 L.Ed.2d 75 (1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Amado Duran Campos
30616_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 10, 1966.
362 F.2d 1011
Published

362 F.2d 1011

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Amado Duran CAMPOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 468.

Docket 30616.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued June 24, 1966.

Decided July 13, 1966.

Certiorari Denied October 10, 1966.

See 87 S.Ct. 95.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction for concealment of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, entered in the District Court for the Southern District of New York after trial before Edmund L. Palmieri, J. and a jury.

Joseph I. Stone, New York City (Stone & Diller, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Roger J. Hawke, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City), for appellee.

Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant's sole point on this appeal from a narcotics conviction is that the District Court, Harold R. Tyler, Judge, erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a suitcase appellant was carrying at the time of his arrest. We affirm on the basis of Judge Tyler's opinion below. 255 F. Supp. 853 (S.D.N.Y.1966).