TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gregory Moyal Anderson v. United States

Gregory Moyal ANDERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Anderson v. United States, 406 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 12, 1969
Docket
No. 22848_1
Judges
Merrill, Hufsted-Ler, Madden, Claims
Citations
406 F.2d 1057

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Anderson appeals from a judgment convicting him of unlawfully importing marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 176a) and Benze-drine ( 18 U.S.C. § 545 ). Anderson’s only claim of error is that the court incorrectly overruled his objections to some remarks of the prosecutor during the prosecutor’s summation to the jury.

The prosecutor described Anderson as a narcotics salesman who was carrying commercial quantities of contraband.

1

The prosecutor’s statements were supported by inferences fairly to be drawn from the evidence. When he was arrested, Anderson had in his possession almost an ounce of marijuana and over 500 pills. (Cf. United States v. Thomas (7th Cir. 1965) 345 F.2d 431 .) The statements were responsive to defense counsel’s argument to the jury that Anderson’s possession of two classes of contraband, one of which “calms you down” and “the other speeds you up,” was consistent with his story that he was carrying the drugs at the request of a person who purported to be a government agent. (Cf. Gray v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 394 F.2d 96, 101 .)

The prosecutor also remarked, “If you want to accept stories like this, let the traffic continue, it is your business, it is your country.” This mild and fleeting remark did not deprive Anderson of a fair trial. (United States v. Williams (6th Cir. 1963) 319 F.2d 479 .)

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The prosecutor said: “Why shouldn’t a salesman have two different types of merchandise, amphetamine, benzedrine, and a little sample of marijuana? Those are commercial quantities.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Lethenia Alfonzia Williams435 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1970)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Lethenia Alfonzia Williams435 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Gray v. United States, 394 F.2d 96 (9th Cir. 1968) 20
United States v. Williams, 319 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1963) 5
United States v. Thomas, 345 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1965) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list