Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Martin Phillip Franz, Defendat-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 469 F.2d 76
Sept. 28, 1972
Theodore S. Flier, of Flier, Ross & Barens, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Paul H. Sweeney, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE,* MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The District Court did not err in ruling that appellant's codefendant was entitled to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The testimony sought would have incriminated the codefendant beyond the charge to which he had pleaded guilty.
With respect to appellant's contention that he was denied the right to comment to the jury on his codefendant's failure to testify, there is no indication in the record that he requested such a right.
It was not error to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting in the light of the evidence introduced. Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1970).
It was not error to fail to instruct respecting statements of appellant's accomplice. There is no evidence that such statements were received in evidence. There was no request for such an instruction.
We find no error in denial of appellant's motion for mistrial.
Judgment affirmed.