TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Mack Cleo Bonds

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MacK Cleo BONDS, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Bonds, 435 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1970)
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
November 20, 1970
Docket
No. 25937
Judges
Barnes, Browning, Duniway, Per Curiam
Citations
435 F.2d 164

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Mack Cleo Bonds was found guilty of knowingly smuggling merchandise into the United States without having it invoiced. 18 U.S.C. § 545 . The only proof supporting the verdict is evidence that he was a passenger in a car rented and driven by his codefendant, that he appeared “to be tense and not at ease” when the car was stopped at the border, and that a search of the car revealed a substantial amount of narcotics hidden under the back seal.

This is insufficient to sustain the jury finding that Bonds had knowledge of his codefendant’s illegal activity and participated therein. To permit the verdict to stand would sanction a verdict resting on suspicion and speculation. Doherty v. United States, 318 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1963); Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1962); Gonzales v. United States, 301 F.2d 31 (9th Cir. 1962).

The government argues that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find a joint venture on the part of the two defendants.

See Eason v. United States, 281 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1960). However, here there was no evidence that Bonds was a long-time friend of his codefendant or that they jointly planned the trip for similar purposes. Instead, the evidence indicates that Bonds was a friend of the codefendant’s son and was simply invited along for the ride. On this evidence we do not believe that “the jurors reasonably could decide that they would not hesitate to act in their own serious affairs upon factual assumptions as probable as the conclusion” that Bonds planned and executed the smuggling as a joint venture with his codefendant. United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237, 1245 (9th Cir. 1969).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

See United States v. Howard, 432 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1970) (Judge Ely concurring).

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 11973: 31975: 11976: 12024: 119712026peak 1973 · 3

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969) 197
Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1962) 129
Eason v. United States, 281 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1960) 76
United States v. Howard, 432 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1970) 13
Gonzales v. United States, 301 F.2d 31 (9th Cir. 1962) 3
Doherty v. United States, 318 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1963) 3

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