People v. Mamaril
California Court of Appeal, Third District
2009 WL 1177057 (2009)
- Written by Caroline Milne, JD
Facts
Murray Stanford (defendant) devised a plan from jail to sell rock cocaine with Rudy Mamaril (defendant) and Taneshia Carter, two friends who were not in jail. Stanford called Mamaril and Carter from jail and discussed matters using coded language, because the telephone calls were recorded. Carter was arrested on unrelated charges and agreed to testify against Mamaril and Stanford, who had been charged with conspiracy to sell rock cocaine. At trial, the state alleged that Mamaril and Stanford committed five overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the transport and sale of cocaine and the giving of orders by Stanford from jail. The state introduced numerous recorded telephone calls between Stanford, Mamaril, and Carter discussing the drug deals and containing coded language. Carter, a drug dealer familiar with the code words, translated the calls for the jury. The investigating officers testified that, based on training and experience, the phone calls between Stanford, Mamaril, and Carter related to drug transactions. The state also introduced a note from Mamaril to Stanford relating to the drug operation. The jury convicted Standford and Mamaril as charged. Stanford and Mamaril appealed, arguing that Carter’s uncorroborated accomplice testimony was unreliable and therefore insufficient to prove conspiracy to sell rock cocaine.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Raye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
