United States v. Wanola Pigott, 453 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Wanola Pigott, 453 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Francheska Brizan (ca9, 2013-03-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Francheska Brizan
9th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. King, 402 F.2d 694, 697 (9th Cir.1968); see also United States v. Pigott, 453 F.2d 419, 419 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Wanola PIGOTT, Defendant-Appellant
71-1377.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 10, 1971.
453 F.2d 419
Earl E. Boyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Asst. U. S. Atty. and Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee., Alvin S. Michaelson (argued), Los An-geles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Chambers, Wright, Choy.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction for misprision of a felony (a bank robbery) is reversed. The problem with the case is the element of not notifying the officers.

Our analysis of the facts indicates Miss Pigott’s simultaneous involvement in the crime at the moment when her duty to notify could have arisen. But at that point we have a collision with the Fifth Amendment and the latter must prevail.

The defendant was convicted of the wrong crime.

The indictment should be dismissed.