United States v. Josie Mae Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Josie Mae Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Young-Bey (dcd, 2025-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Young-Bey
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Rather, the opinion recognizes that where “adequate circumstantial evidence supports the inference” that a mailing occurred, “direct proof of mailing is not required.” Id. at 476 (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir. 1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larin 199915 v. Shinn
D. Ariz. · 2022 · confidence medium
Given the evidence described in this 8 report, however, the jury could reasonably conclude that Larin was guilty of kidnapping. 9 As such, “[a] motion for judgment of acquittal . . . would have been denied, and it was 10 neither unreasonable nor prejudicial for counsel not to make such a fruitless motion.” 11 United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (citing 12 Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc)). 13 Claim (f): Larin contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 14 certain statements made by the prosecutor.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. David Johnson
9th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although direct proof of mailing is not required, see United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam), a mere probability that Thompson’s notes were mailed is insufficient to sustain Johnson’s convictions, see United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir.2000) (reversing a mail fraud convietion because “as the chain of inferences based on usual practices gets longer, the probability that nothing went wrong in administering those practices lessens”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hirokawa
9th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Green, 745 F.2d at 1208 ; United States v. Miller, 676 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that “custom and practice evidence alone” was insufficient because of “the absence of any direct evidence of the document’s existence,” let alone its delivery into the mail system). 6.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hirokawa
9th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Green, 745 F.2d at 1208 ; United States v. Miller, 676 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that “custom and practice evidence alone” was insufficient because of “the absence of any direct evidence of the document’s existence,” let alone its delivery into the mail system). 6.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rios v. Nicholson
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
O’Toole, 471 F.Supp.2d at 1329 -30 (citing United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Joyce, 499 F.2d 9, 15 (7th Cir.1974); Stevens v. United States, 306 F.2d 834, 835 (5th Cir.1962)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) O'Toole v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2007 · confidence medium
See generally Pl.’s Brief at 3 (citing United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Joyce, 499 F.2d 9, 15 (7th Cir.1974); Stevens v. United States, 306 F.2d 834, 835 (5th Cir. *1330 1962)); 11 Pl.’s Reply Brief at 2-3; Pl.’s Supp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America,plaintiff-Appellee v. Sho Jay Matsumaru
9th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir.1984) ("Evidence of routine custom and practice can be sufficient to support the inference that something is mailed.”); United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1979) (holding that circumstantial evidence can support inference of mailing). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Reynolds
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Reynolds appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his jury conviction for 13 counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , and three counts of witness tampering, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(2)(B). 3 In his Section 2255 motion Reynolds alleged (1) that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that he had used the "United States Postal Service" to support 11 of his 13 mail fraud convictions, and (2) that he had been rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. 4 The district court denied Reynold's Section 2255 motion and accur…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Monty G. Mason, Ii, Richard B. Noyer, Leonardo Radomile, and Lewis Koss
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 (1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John B. Green
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1801 , 60 L.Ed.2d 248 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Owens
usnmcmilrev · 1981 · confidence medium
That an accused must show actual prejudice should he wish an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel to stand is a premise well-grounded in federal law: See, e.g., United States v. Runge, 593 F.2d 66, 70 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (defendant failed to demonstrate that short trial preparation time prejudicial); Fulford v. Blackburn, 593 F.2d 17, 19 (5th Cir. 1979) (attorney’s negotiation of impermissible sentence not ineffective assistance because defendant could not have received lesser sentence); United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (counsel’s…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Charles Goss and George C. Benson
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1801 , 60 L.Ed.2d 248 (1979); United States v. Fassoulis, 445 F.2d 13, 17 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 858 , 92 S.Ct. 110 , 30 L.Ed.2d 100 (1971); Stevens v. United States, 306 F.2d 834, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1962).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Marcus Arthur Fontaine, AKA Bob Mato, Robert McConihay Mike Furlong, Robert Matoni, John Grossman
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.); cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 (1979); Bolen v. United States, 303 F.2d 870, 875 (9th Cir.1962). 12 We also conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to convict Fontaine of money laundering counts 13 and 15.
cited Cited "see" Flamer v. State
Del. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1801 , 60 L.Ed.2d 248 (1979).
cited Cited "see" Government of the Virgin Islands v. Nico
D.V.I. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 (1979).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Joseph Singfield Miller, Sherri A. Atkinson, Golden West Escrow Company, Earl J. Harrington
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brackenridge, 590 F.2d 810 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1801 , 60 L.Ed.2d 248 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Josie Mae BRACKENRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant
78-2808.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 2, 1979.
590 F.2d 810
Judith A. Clarke (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant., Bruce R. Castetter, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal. (on the brief), Michael H. Walsh, U. S. Atty., Bruce R. Castetter, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Anderson, Browning, Claiborne, Per Curiam.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
[*811] PER CURIAM:

Appellant was hired by Celia Marfone as a part-time nurse to care for Mrs. Marfone’s sick husband. The Mariones had recently moved to San Diego from Philadelphia, where they maintained savings accounts at Western Savings Bank and at Philadelphia Savings Fund Society. A week after appellant was hired, Mrs. Marfone discovered that her bank book had been taken from her purse and that a withdrawal had been made on at least one of the accounts.

About the same time, appellant opened accounts at California First Bank with a $14,000 check drawn on the Mariones’ Western Savings account and a $2,500 check drawn on the Philadelphia Savings account. The checks had been procured by withdrawal letters bearing Mrs. Marfone’s forged signature and instructing the banks to send the checks to a National City address at which appellant operated a boutique. Appellant was charged with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and using a false and fictitious name in a scheme to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1342. A jury found her guilty. We affirm.

Appellant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that the mails had been used to get the $2500 Philadelphia Savings Fund Society check to appellant. The check was initialed by an employee of the Society’s bank-by-mail department. Testimony from the manager of that department established that routine custom and practice for handling cross-country withdrawal requests would result in a mailing. That is adequate circumstantial evidence to support the inference that the check cashed by appellant in this case was mailed. Direct proof of mailing was not required. See United States v. Joyce, 499 F.2d 9, 15 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Fassoulis, 445 F.2d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 1971). See also Stevens v. United States, 306 F.2d 834, 835 (5th Cir. 1962).

Appellant also contends that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief because no evidence had been introduced to link appellant to the National City address in the withdrawal letters. The jurors could reasonably have found appellant guilty without knowing that the address had some special connection to her. A motion for judgment of acquittal therefore would have been denied, and it was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial for counsel not to make such a fruitless motion. Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978).

Nor was it unreasonable to call appellant to the stand, even though, as her appellate counsel now puts it, her testimony “left little doubt that the evidence warranted a conclusion contrary to that sought by the defendant.” Absent some evidence that trial counsel coerced or misguided her into testifying, the choice to take the stand was appellant’s. Further, the case-in-chief against appellant was sufficiently strong that a “reasonably competent attorney acting as a diligent conscientious advocate” would have thought it wiser to have the jurors hear appellant’s version of events than to leave them with only the prosecution’s uncontradicted version. Cooper v. Fitzharris, supra, 586 F.2d at 1330.

Affirmed.