United States v. Freddie Moore
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddie MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
Moore was charged in a three-count indictment with concealment of illegally imported narcotics and illegal sale of narcotics, violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174 , and with illegal transfer of narcotics in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705 . He was convicted on all three counts. We affirm.
1.
Entrapment.
Moore argues that entrapment was established as a matter of law. Had the jury chosen to accept Moore's story, it could have found entrapment. But there was also substantial evidence on the basis of which the jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that while the government afforded Moore an opportunity to commit the offenses, nevertheless, Moore was not subjected by the government to “persuasion or pressure * * * which induce[d]” him to commit the offenses when he “had no predisposition to do so.” United States v. Walton, 9 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 283, 288 .
2.
The Allen instruction.
Moore argues that it was error to give the so-called Allen or dynamite instruction after the jury had indicated inability to reach a unanimous verdict. On this record, the point is not available. Appellant’s counsel examined the instruction now objected to before it was read to the jury. He did not object to it; he expressly approved it. Rule 30, F.R.Crim. P. The challenged instruction is identical in every material respect to that approved by this court in Dearinger v. United States, 9 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 346 , cert. denied 389 U.S. 885 , 88 S.Ct. 156 , 19 L.Ed.2d 183 , and is substantially similar to those approved in Sullivan v. *1307 United States, 9 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 714 ; Christy v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 261 F.2d 357 ; and Hutson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 167 .
Moreover, the record indicates that the jury was not coerced by the instruction. The jury did not reach a verdict immediately after receiving the instruction. During its further deliberations, it asked to hear again, and did hear, the testimony of all the witnesses. Only after that did it retire for a second time and finally reach a verdict. Rather than submitting to “coercion,” the jury discharged its duty in a conscientious and laudable fashion.
Moore’s application for bail pending appeal, filed August 5, 1970, is denied.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting the fact “[t]he jury did not reach a verdict immediately after receiving the instruction” was indicative of the absence of coercion)
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.