United States v. Paul Howard Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Paul Howard Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Modern Holdings, LLC v. Corning, Inc. (ca6, 2024-09-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Modern Holdings, LLC v. Corning, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2024 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Wall v. United States, 384 F.2d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fonseca v. Hall
C.D. Cal. · 2008 · confidence medium
See e.g., Eckert v. Tansy, 936 F.2d 444, 445, 448-50 (9th Cir.1991) (two consecutive life sentences for first-degree kidnapping is not cruel and unusual punishment where weapon was used to commit the kidnappings and defendant threatened victims with death); United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1302-03 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (concurrent life sentences for kidnapping a mother and son, after defendant approached them with gun in his hand, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment), cer t. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977); United States v. Bondurant, 555 F.2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pickard
D. Kan. · 2003 · confidence medium
The jury may have thought there was not even a shadow of doubt as to guilt.” United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hernandez
Conn. App. Ct. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Penagaricano-Soler, 911 F.2d 833, 846 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S. Ct. 438 , 54 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Childress
D.D.C. · 1990 · confidence medium
Moreover, the defendant Columbus Daniels’ attempts to intimidate and harass witnesses who the government intended to call against him at his subsequent trial on charges of first-degree murder and carrying a pistol without a license, which were severed from his conspiracy trial, indicate a strong likelihood that he would have tried to tamper with the jurors if he had access to their names and addresses. 25 “There is no established rule that any specified time is required to reach unanimity.” United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 4…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larry Hale and Linda Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, the Budd Company. Larry Hale and Linda Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, the Budd Company
8th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 737-38 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 907 , 99 S.Ct. 1213 , 59 L.Ed. 454 (1979); United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1302-03 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
8th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 737-38 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 907 , 99 S.Ct. 1213 , 59 L.Ed. 454 (1979); United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1302-03 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Doyle
Mass. · 1984 · confidence medium
In responding to the defendant’s claim that the jury did not give the evidence adequate consideration, this court said ‘[t]he case had been tried fully, and the jury could not help receiving impressions as the case proceeded.’ See also United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 943 (1977); State v. Inman, 350 A.2d 582, 600-601 (Me. 1976) (forty minutes, murder); State v. Verdone, 114R.I. 613, 623 (1975) (thirteen minutes, rape); State v. Killary, 133 Vt. 604, 607 (1975) (less than forty-seven minutes, first degree murder).” Commonweal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Webster
Mass. · 1984 · confidence medium
In responding to the defendant’s claim that the jury did not give the evidence adequate consideration, this court said “[t]he case had been tried fully, and the jury could not help receiving impressions as the case proceeded.” See also United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 (1977); State v. Inman, 350 A.2d 582, 600-601 (Me. 1976) (forty minutes, murder); State v. Verdone, 114 R.I. 613, 623 (1975) (thirteen minutes, rape); State v. Killary, 133 Vt. 604, 607 (1975) (less than forty-seven minutes, first degree murder). 3 The defend…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin-Trigona v. Lavien
D. Conn. · 1983 · confidence medium
United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edward Grady Partin
9th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alfred Esteban Azhocar, United States of America v. Alfred Esteban Azhocar
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 1977). *739 Second, even if these claims now made on appeal had been included in a timely § 144 affidavit, they would be insufficient to satisfy the statute.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Marc Milles
9th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.1977) (“There is no established rule that any specified time is required to reach unanimity.
cited Cited "see" American Samoa Government v. Su'a
amsamoa · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (upholding verdict that jury reached after "brief deliberation”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S. Ct. 438 , 54 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ahern v. Scholz
1st Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Peñagarícano-Soler, 911 F.2d at 846 ; see also United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.) (holding that jury’s brief deliberation does *786 not indicate it did not give full and impartial consideration to the evidence), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977); Brotherton, 427 F.2d at 1289 (finding that jury deliberation of five to seven minutes did not demonstrate that jury did not consider court’s instructions before reaching verdict).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ahern v. Scholz
1st Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Pe agar cano-Soler, 911 F.2d at 846 ; see also __________________ ________ United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.) ______________ ________ (holding that jury's brief deliberation does not indicate it did not give full and impartial consideration to the evidence), cert. _____ denied, 434 U.S. 943 (1977); Brotherton, 427 F.2d at 1289 ______ __________ (finding that jury deliberation of five to seven minutes did not demonstrate that jury did not consider court's instructions before reaching verdict).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Raul Enrique Penagaricano-Soler
1st Cir. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 561 F.2d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) ("brief deliberation”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943 , 98 S.Ct. 438 , 54 L.Ed.2d 304 (1977); United States v. Brotherton, 427 F.2d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir.1970) (five to seven minutes); Wall v. United States, 384 F.2d 758, 762 (10th Cir.1967) (one hour); Kimes v. United States, 242 F.2d 99, 100-01 (5th Cir.) (twenty minutes) (order denying rehearing), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 912 , 77 S.Ct. 1299 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1429 (1957). 16 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Paul Howard ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
77-1434.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 7, 1977.
561 F.2d 1301
Elliott L. Aheroni, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Ange-les, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Chambers, Per Curiam, Sneed, Solomon.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Paul Anderson, was convicted after a jury trial of kidnapping and interstate transportation, interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, interstate transportation of a stolen firearm, and use of a firearm to commit a felony. On this appeal, he asserts errors in procedure and the manner in which the trial was conducted.

Anderson escaped from a California prison on July 26, 1976. Three days later, he stole a truck and the gun which was in the glove compartment. Anderson later abandoned the truck in a supermarket parking lot and approached Susan Melton and her son with the gun in his hand. He told Mrs. Melton that he had escaped from prison and that he was desperate; he forced his way into her van. He then drove the van to Nevada, where he had Mrs. Melton leave her son at a motel with a babysitter. Anderson then drove to Arizona, Utah and Idaho. He denied Mrs. Melton’s repeated requests to be released. In Idaho, Anderson stopped at a restaurant. While Mrs. Melton was inside the restaurant, she fell to the floor pretending to be ill, and customers came to her aid. Anderson fled, but he was captured at a police roadblock.

Anderson admitted most of these facts at the trial.

Anderson contends that the trial judge should have disqualified himself for bias because he had presided at the proceedings in which Anderson had first entered a plea of guilty. Anderson failed to follow[*1303] the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 144 in requesting the judge to disqualify himself.

Anderson next contends that he had insufficient time to prepare a defense. The trial was held almost two months after he withdrew his guilty plea, and his counsel did not request additional preparation time.

Anderson contends that he was denied due process because he was required to wear the same clothes during the two-day trial, was not given a haircut, and was seen by some of the jurors in the hallway in handcuffs. Anderson was attired in non-prison clothes. His hair was no longer than that of Government counsel and defense counsel. And there was no request for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction on the clothes, hair or handcuffs.

Anderson contends that the jury’s brief deliberation indicates it did not give full and impartial consideration to the evidence. The record fully supports the verdict. There is no established rule that any specified time is required to reach unanimity. Defendant’s argument is a two-edged sword. The jury may have thought there was not even a shadow of doubt as to guilt.

Finally, Anderson contends that his concurrent life sentences on the two kidnapping charges are excessive, cruel and unusual. The sentences are within the statutory maximum, and Anderson points to no improper considerations by the trial judge.

There is no merit in any of these contentions.

AFFIRMED.