431 F.2d 878
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee,
v.
Richard C. BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 25707.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1970, Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1970.
D. Thompson Slutes, Tucson, Ariz. (argued), of Lesher & Scruggs, Tucson, Ariz., Dudley S. Welker, of Anderson & Welker, Safford, Ariz., for appellant.
James Wilkes (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant was charged in Count One with offering a bribe of $100 to two immigration officials on May 26, 1969; and in Count Two with the giving of a bribe of $25 to an immigration official on June 23, 1969.
Appellant was convicted on Count Two and acquitted on Count One. He charges as error that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent; that the government split one crime into two counts improperly, that although this appellant was not in custody he was entitled to a Miranda type warning; and that the government failed to comply with local Rule 42, setting up a dead-line for notice to counsel of defendant's admissions.
While we may compliment appellant's counsel on the able and imaginative manner in which the alleged errors were urged, (a) we find no inconsistency in the two verdicts; (b) the government's charge of two counts was proper (United States v. Michelson, 165 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir.), aff'd335 U.S. 469, 69 S. Ct. 213, 93 L. Ed. 168 (1948)); (c) a person is entitled to no warning during the commission of a crime (Grier v. United States, 345 F.2d 523, 524 (9th Cir. 1965); Feldstein v. United States, 429 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1970); and (d) Rule 42 expressly provides the trial court may excuse compliance with the rule which it here did.
We affirm the conviction.
