UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD SONNY NERO, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the admission of co-defendant's statements was harmless error and did not violate the appellant's confrontation rights.
Nero was convicted of unlawfully selling heroin. He appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the statute and the admission of statements made by…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Nero appeals from his conviction on two counts charging him with the unlawful sale of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 174.
Nero challenges the constitutionality of the presumption prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 174, but the validity of the presumption, as applied to the possession of heroin, has been established. Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).
Nero’s second contention involves certain statements claimed to have been made by Nero’s co-defendant, Clarence Williams. Williams was also convicted, and his appeal to our court was unsuccessful. United States v. Williams, 423 F. 2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970). Nero argues that Williams’ statements were improperly admitted into evidence through the testimony of a federal narcotics agent and that, since Williams did not testify, there was infringement of Nero’s confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).
We find it unnecessary to detail the statements in question. If they could be so interpreted as to implicate Nero at all, which is questionable, their incriminating effect, as .to him, was so insignificant that their admission was harmless beyond all reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Harling, 463 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1970)
- United States v. Williams, 423 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1970)