United States v. Basurto
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
497 F.2d 781 (1974)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
The appellants in three consolidated cases (the appellants) (defendants) were charged alongside 14 other people with conspiring to import and distribute marijuana from Mexico to the United States. The grand jury’s indictment named William Barron as a coconspirator but not a defendant. Barron testified to the grand jury that some of appellants’ allegedly illegal activities occurred before May 1, 1971. Before trial began, Barron told the prosecutor (plaintiff) that Barron had lied to the grand jury about everything predating May 1, 1971. Importantly, on May 1, 1971, a new drug-sentencing law took effect; if the appellants’ conspiracy began before May 1, the appellants faced a five-year-mandatory-minimum sentence, but if the conspiracy began after May 1, the appellants faced no mandatory-minimum sentence. The prosecutor informed the defense counsel of the perjury, but the prosecutor did not notify the grand jury or the court. The case proceeded to trial, and during opening statements, the prosecutor minimized the extent and importance of Barron’s perjury by claiming that although Barron lied about when he met various people, Barron was lying to protect a friend, and that that was the only material lie in Barron’s grand-jury testimony. The jury convicted the appellants. The appellants raised several issues, including a challenge to Barron’s perjured grand-jury testimony.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ferguson, J.)
Concurrence (Hufstedler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.