Legal Opinion

Government of the Canal Zone v. Ruben Antonio Yanez P. (Pinto), Government of the Canal Zone v. David Rouse U. (Uweil)

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided March 8, 1979No. 78-5102, 78-5103PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WISDOM, Circuit Judge:

R. A. Yanez P. (Pinto) and D. Rouse U. (Uweil), the defendant-appellants, were convicted of assault with intent to rob. The evidence identifying them as the assailants consisted in part of hearsay statements made by the two victims at a preliminary hearing. These statements were introduced under the Canal Zone codal provisions regulating the use of deposition testimony of absent witnesses. Because the government made no showing that it was unable to procure the attendance of the declarants to testify at trial, the prosecution’s use of this testimony violated sections…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Dutton v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Douglas v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Martinez v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. United States v. Carl FieldingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  4. Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  5. Otero-Miranda v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1988

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API