United States v. Joseph Patrick Long, 455 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Joseph Patrick Long, 455 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 · …was plainly intended to cover only those types of statements that are generally subject to court hearings prior to admission at trial. at p. 963 ✓
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hall
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
In response, she admitted she did not have a visitor’s pass or a sponsor and that she was “affiliated with the demonstration.” She argues her statements should have been suppressed because the government did not notify her counsel it intended to use them at trial, as required by Rule 86 of the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona. 3 As we noted in United States v. Long, 455 F.2d 962, 963 (9th Cir.1972), Rule 86- “was plainly intended to cover only those types of statements that are generally subject to court hearings prior to admission at trial.” Ms. Barnabee’s couns…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lillian Marie Hall, United States of America v. James Gregory Walsh, United States of America v. Debra Lynn Barnabee, United States of America v. Amy Shubitz
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
In response, she admitted she did not have a visitor's pass or a sponsor and that she was "affiliated with the demonstration." She argues her statements should have been suppressed because the government did not notify her counsel it intended to use them at trial, as required by Rule 86 of the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona. 3 11 As we noted in United States v. Long, 455 F.2d 962, 963 (9th Cir.1972), Rule 86 "was plainly intended to cover only those types of statements that are generally subject to court hearings prior to admission at trial." Ms. Barnabee's counsel told th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph Patrick LONG, Defendant-Appellant
71-2593.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 15, 1972.
455 F.2d 962
Frank L. Ross, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant., Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Thomas N. Crowe, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Merrill, Browning, Wright.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried and found guilty of transporting marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. We affirm.

Appellant objects to the admission of various conversations between himself and a government witness who had loaned him the car in which the transportation took place. He bases his contention on the district court’s Local Rule 42, set[*963] forth in the margin, [1] that requires the government attorney to furnish defense counsel, at least fifteen days before trial, with “all written or oral confessions, admissions or statements of the Defendant which the Government intends to use during the course of the trial.”

Read as a whole, the rule was plainly intended to cover only those types of statements that are generally subject to court hearings prior to admission at trial. We conclude, as did the district court, that the rule is inapplicable to statements made by the defendant to witnesses other than law enforcement personnel or their agents. [2]

Affirmed.

1

. Local Rule 42, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, provides as follows:

“Unless otherwise ordered the United States Attorney at least fifteen days prior to trial, shall give written notice to the Defendant through his attorney of any and all written or oral confessions, admissions or statements of the Defendant which the Government intends to use during the course of the trial.
Not less than ten days prior to the trial date, defendant’s attorney shall, unless otherwise ordered, notify the Clerk and the United States Attorney of the objections, if any, which Defendant may have to such confessions, admissions or statements. On receipt of the objections, the Clerk shall fix a time and place for hearing such objections and determining the admissibility of the alleged confessions, admissions or statements.”

Rule 42 has been superseded by Local Rule 86, but the wording of the rule remains the same.

2

. We take care to point out that we are dealing here only with the scope of the local rule, not of the general discovery provisions of Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P.