Summary
holding that a defendant may forfeit the privilege to testify through conduct
Summary of this case from State v. AnthonyOpinion
No. 73-1726.
October 15, 1976. Certiorari Denied February 22, 1977.
Mark E. Vovos (argued), of Bovey Vovos, Spokane, Wash., Kelly Hancock (argued), Omak, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington; William N. Goodwin, District Judge.
Our opinion in this case, 504 F.2d 935, was filed August 9, 1974. Ives petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97.
Thereafter, the Court ordered "that the judgment of the said United States Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)." See 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).
An examination of Drope makes clear that the only issues which the Court has directed us to consider further are found in part II of our opinion. Therefore, we reinstate parts I, III and IV of our opinion.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings pertaining to the issues contained in part II of our opinion in light of Drope, as well as DeKaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).