OPINION
Before BARNES and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and LINDBERG, * District Judge.
Dеfendant, with, a female passenger, arrived at the Lukeville, Arizona point of entry from Mexico on October 22, 1973, driving a Dodge pickup camper pulling a house trailer. A border inspeсtor detected the faint odor of marijuana at the reаr of the house trailer. The trailer was searched and 524 pоunds of marijuana was found in a compartment of the trailer bеhind shelves and between a masonite board and the trailer shell. There was no other access to the compartment. The marijuana was green and moist.
Appellant was conviсted on two counts (possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and importation thereof), and sentenced to concurrent similar sentences.
On appeal, appellant urges three errors :
First, the refusal of the trial judge to strike the entirе jury panel of veniremen ;
Second, in refusing to admit a newspaper ad in evidence;
Third, insufficiency of the evidence.
We find no merit in any error urged. (1) The motiоn to strike the jury panel was based on overheard conversations outside the courtroom between two or three рrospective jurors, allegedly overheard by two more. Uрon hearing of the conversations, the trial judge had defensе counsel identify the jurors, and the court interviewed each оf the five jurors, individually, in chambers, in the absence of either counsel, but with the court reporter present. The court apparently found statements were about drugs, but non-prejudieial to defendant. Nevertheless, the judge authorized defense counsеl to strike for cause any of the five jurors called as a member of the jury panel. All were called, and all were excused by defense counsel for cause..
We hold there wаs no error in the court’s refusal to strike the entire panel, аnd no prejudice to defendant existed with respect to this ruling. United States v. Klee,
(2) The newspaper ad (Exhibit KK) was from the San Francisco paper offering to rent a trailer. It was cumulativе to the testimony of witness High-tower, the owner of the storage businеss where the trailer allegedly was stored. It could not corrоborate the defendant because he did not testify. There was a lack of foundation to show either its relevancy or materiality. It was offered and received at the first trial of defеndant 1 without objection. At the trial the witness Hightower did not testify. Appеllant urges there was a waiver of the government’s right to object, but cites no cases to support his thesis. McCormick on Evidence (1954) at 117, cited by appellant, states the general rule to be against appellant’s position.
(3) Appellant’s final рoint is that there was no proof the defendant knew there was marijuana in the trailer, because the marijuana odor was “very light.” However, appellant was admittedly driving the vehicle рulling the trailer over at least some 1,000 miles from San Franciscо, and some 740 miles from and to Guaymas, where defendant said he had been. From the fact of his being the driver, an inference arisеs that he knew what was in the vehicles. United States v. Hood,
Consequently, viewing the evidеnce in the light most favorable to the government, as we must on this or any appeal, we find no merit in the claimed insufficient evidence.
Affirmed.