green
Positive treatment
1.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Blackledge v. United States
But see Brock v. United States, supra at 958 (the fact that Master Charge card was stolen thirty months prior to appellant’s arrest, while in possession of the card, is insufficient, standing alone, to support an inference that appellant knew he was receiving stolen property) (citing United States v. Taylor, 480 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1973) (two years not “recent” so as to support conviction involving credit card)).
cited
Cited "see"
Brock v. United States
See United States v. Taylor, 480 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (two years not “recent” so as to support conviction involving credit card).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Thomas Lee TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant
v.
Thomas Lee TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant
72-1854.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 24, 1973.
480 F.2d 154
Martha Goldin, Atty. (argued), Alan Saltzman, Saltzman & Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for defendant and appellant., Michael C. Solner, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Lawrence W. Campbell, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff and appellee.
Chambers, Hufstedler, East.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
OPINION
PER CURIAM:The judgment of conviction in this stolen credit card case is reversed.
The defendant is obviously guilty of something, but the lapse of time (over two years after the card was mailed) is just too great a lapse of time, without more, to convict him of having stolen it from the mails or of possessing it knowing it to be stolen. Of course, we do not intend to impair any of our cases on the inferences that can be drawn from the possession of recently stolen property.
This is a case that belonged on the state side of the street. Unless the government now has something more in the way of evidence to offer, the indictment should be dismissed.