Luis Hernandez, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 352 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1965)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 352 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1965) October 25, 1965

Frank Duncan, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty. Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and TAVARES, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:


The judgment of conviction is affirmed. We find no substance to appellant's contentions.

Hernandez was denied a bill of particulars. The court acted within its discretion on the indictment here. Also, a trial memorandum prepared and filed by the government well advised Hernandez what he had to meet. The government sustained its burden of proof.

Complaint is made here that no warrant of arrest was issued. On the facts, none was needed. See Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S. Ct. 329, 3 L. Ed. 2d 327. Also, it is said that on the occasion of his arrest Hernandez was not properly advised of his constitutional rights. Perhaps so, but the government's case did not include any post detention admissions or confessions. Cf. Ramirez v. Lozoya, 9 Cir., 253 F.2d 85, cert. denied, 357 U.S. 941, 78 S. Ct. 1391, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1554.

There was no error in the failure to recess the trial to get three witnesses. There was no surprise during the trial requiring such a course.

We cannot agree that there was any misconduct on the part of the trial court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.