United States v. Ronald Mejia, 529 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Ronald Mejia, 529 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Joann Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2012)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 996 Admissibility of evidence under rule 403 balancing test4 citing casesPER CURIAM: Defendant, Ronald Mejia, appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§…opening of page *996 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • United States v. Joann Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2012).published 2 cites
    See United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Mejia, 529 F.2d 995, 996 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam).
  • United States v. Roger E.A. Taylor, 127 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 1997).unpublished
    Taylor contends that the testimony was "prosecutorial pettifoggery." See United States v. Mejia, 529 F.2d 995, 996 (9th Cir.1976).
  • United States v. John Dwyer, 539 F.2d 924 (2d Cir. 1976).published
    Cf. United States v. Mejia, 529 F.2d 995, 996 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
  • United States v. Michael Bell, 573 F.2d 1040 (8th Cir. 1978).published
    Fed.R.Evid. 403; see United States v. Mejia, 529 F.2d 995, 996 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Ronald MEJIA, Appellant
75--2391.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 26, 1976.
Published opinion
529 F.2d 995
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13160
Nelson Brav (argued), San Diego, Cal., for appellant., Stephen V. Petix, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Jeffrey F. Arbetman, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief, San Diego, Cal., for appel-lee.
Ely, Goodwin, Per Curiam, Pregerson.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

Before ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, * District Judge. [*996] PER CURIAM:

Defendant, Ronald Mejia, appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846.

The trial court admitted evidence, offered by the government, that Mejia was required to report to jail on the night of February 26, 1975, the same date he allegedly engaged in a narcotics transaction charged in the indictment. Despite Mejia’s assertion of an entrapment defense, the bare evidence of his duty to report to jail was of little or no probative value since that fact would not tend to prove a predisposition to commit the specific crimes charged. This evidence was also highly prejudicial as reflecting on Mejia’s testimonial crédibility and was inadmissible because its probative value, if any, was far outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Fed.Rules of Evid. 403. Since Mejia’s credibility was crucial to the entrapment defense, the admission of this highly prejudicial evidence, which debased his credibility, constituted reversible error.

Bluntly speaking, the government’s introduction of the challenged evidence was an indulgence in prosecutorial pettifoggery.

Another point. On the facts presented at trial, Mejia was entitled to jury instructions on an entrapment defense for all three counts, even though he did not admit all of the elements presented by the third count. United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1975).

Reversed.