United States v. Joseph Addison Vansant, 423 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Joseph Addison Vansant, 423 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Roberto Sepulveda (ca9, 2010-08-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roberto Sepulveda
9th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
“Merely raising the possibility of tampering is not sufficient to render evidence inadmissible.” Id. (citing United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir.1970)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. David Olon Harrington
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 835 , 91 S.Ct. 72 , 27 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Henry T. Lane, A/K/A Dutch, A/K/A Henry T, (Two Cases)
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Penick & Co., supra note 2, 136 F.2d at 415 ; Brewer v. United States, supra note 2, 353 F.2d at 262 ; United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 835 , 91 S.Ct. 72 , 27 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Thomas Henry Logan
9th Cir. · 1970 · confidence medium
Witt has been followed in a number of ninth circuit decisions, including United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Travis Grant Ashbrook
9th Cir. · 1970 · confidence medium
United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir. 1970); Corwin v. United States, 423 F.2d 33, 34 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 938 , 90 S.Ct. 1842 , 26 L.Ed.2d 271 (1970); United States v. Reyes-Meza De Polanco, 422 F.2d 1304, 1305 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1081 , 90 S.Ct. 1536 , 25 L.Ed.2d 817 (1970) and United States v. Cordova, 421 F.2d 471, 475 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 941 , 90 S.Ct. 1855 , 26 L.Ed.2d 276 (1970).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Arthur Joseph Avey, and Larry Richard Dean
9th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See álso United States v. Vansant, supra. We reach this question and reaffirm our determination in Costello and Caudillo that this part of the presumption is constitutional.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. George Vernon May
9th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1970); Gaylor v. United States, 426 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph Addison VANSANT, Defendant-Appellant
24559.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 15, 1970.
423 F.2d 620
James W. Brammer, Jr. (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for appellant., Stanley L. Patchell (argued), Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Barnes, Hufstedler, Wright.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
BARNES, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction by a jury verdict of the posses[*621] sion of ten pounds of marijuana. Appellant and two minors were arrested when some object, later ascertained to be marijuana, was thrown out of the automobile by the appellant during a chase by Custom officials. One of the three young men.(Rutledge) turned state’s evidence, and told the story of how the marijuana was arranged for in Mexico with a Mexican taxicab driver, and picked up on the next day on this side of the border near the border line.

No testimony was introduced in defense. Three errors are now alleged:

1. That the jury was wrongfully instructed it could infer unlawful importation from possession.

If the jury believed the testimony of Rutledge there was no need to rely on any inference. The defense made no objection to the court’s instructions (R.T. 139-40), and hence waived error, unless we determine it was plain error for the court to give the instruction. We hold it was not. The Leary ease expressly left open the very question appellant now wishes to raise, and Leary was decided two weeks before this case was tried. Leary v. United States, May 19, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 47-52, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57. Under these circumstances we see no reason to invoke the plain error rule to excuse appellant from raising the constitutional issue at the time of trial.

2. That the marijuana (Exhibits 4-12, inclusive, and 15) was improperly admitted because its chain of government custody was questioned.

The Government insists the proof of the chain of custody was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We agree. There was no “break” in the chain of custody; merely a question raised by the defense of a possibility of a break in the chain, i. e., that someone might have interfered with that chain. We think this “possibility” raises the question of the weight to be accorded by the jury to the sufficiency of the proof of a chain of custody, but no more than that.

3. That the defense to a charge of possession of marijuana imported contrary to law involves potential self-incrimination of the defendant, because of the provisions of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1484 and 1485.

As appellant states, “in essence, those sections require that when merchandise is brought into the United States the person receiving it must report what is being imported”; what it is worth; and pay the duty thereon.

We have already rejected such contention. Witt v. United States, 413 F.2d 303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 396 U.S. 932, 90 S.Ct. 272, 24 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969); United States v. Polanco, (9th Cir.), decided March 9, 1970; United States v. Williams, 424 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.), decided March 9, 1970. And see discussion: Wynn v. United States, 422 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir.), decided March 5, 1970.

We affirm the conviction.