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. George Mcdonald Hamer, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 469 F.2d 80
Nov. 13, 1972
Joseph A. Milchen (argued), of McInerney, Milchen & Frank, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Thomas M. Coffin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Hamer was convicted on nineteen charges of having illegally transported aliens in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(2). The district judge sentenced Hamer to a period of confinement for a term of three years on each of the nineteen convictions and ordered that each of the sentences be served concurrently with the others. From the record, it appears that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions on counts three to five, (incl.), counts eight to fifteen, (incl.), and counts seventeen to nineteen, (incl.) of the nineteen-count indictment. The evidence was sufficient, however, to support Hamer's convictions on the other counts; hence, under the concurrent sentence principle, we choose not to elaborate upon the reasons for the impropriety of the convictions on the counts above specified.
Hamer presents three other contentions: (1) That the prosecution was erroneously permitted to impeach one of its own witnesses, (2) that the defense was unduly restricted in cross-examination, and (3) that there was misconduct on the part of one or more of the jurors. This latter contention is not adequately supported by the record, and assuming, arguendo, that there was technical error in the two respects relating to the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the error was not of such dimension as to require reversal. On three of the counts of which Hamer was convicted, the prosecution's evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.
Affirmed.