Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

391 F.2d 607

Docket No. 21137.

Cedillo v. United States

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 20, 1968.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-02-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1968

3 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on Haynes v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1968-02-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Roger Sullivan, San Jose, Cal., for appellant Juvera.

¶2Patrick Cedillo, in pro per.

¶3James E. Shekoyan (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty. William M. Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

¶4Before HAMLIN, MERRILL, and ELY, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Appellants were convicted under an indictment charging them with having unlawfully possessed an unregistered firearm, an offense proscribed by 26 U.S.C. § 5851. Prior to their trial, they moved that the indictment be dismissed. They based their motion upon the claim that enforcement of the cited statute would infringe upon their constitutional rights against required self-incrimination. It has now been established that their motion, denied by the District Court, should have been granted. Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 Sup.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968).

¶7Upon remand, the indictment will be dismissed.

¶8Reversed.

/391/f2d/607 · .json · Public domain