UNITED STATES
v.
PAGANO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for a jury view of the premises or in its jury instructions regarding witness credibility and entrapment.
The appellant was convicted of selling heroin. During the trial, the court denied a request for the jury to view the premises where the transaction oc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretionary Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted by a jury after trial on an indictment charging the sale of heroin in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 173-174. He was admittedly a second offender; was sentenced to imprisonment as such; and has since been serving that sentence, a small fine having been imposed and remitted.
The denial of appellant’s motion for a jury view of the premises, where, according to the testimony of a narcotics agent the purchaser of the heroin handed money in payment for it to the appellant was without error. It was a matter of discretion reviewable only for abuse of that. Le Prell v. United States, 5 Cir., 192 F. 2d 132; Neufield v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 174, 118 F. 2d 375; Massenberg v. United States, 4 Cir., 19 F. 2d 62. Here no abuse was shown. The conditions about which the witness testified were well enough shown by photographs of the premises to enable the jury to determine whether he was in a position to have seen money passed from where he said he did.
Dean who made the purchase was acting as a decoy and was shown to have been a dope addict with a criminal record. His testimony was an essential part of the government’s case and the court was requested to charge that it “should be examined with much greater scrutiny than that of an ordinary witness.” The court did not use that language but charged the jury that his interest and criminal record should be taken into consideration in passing upon his credibility and in giving his evidence “such weight as you think it deserves.” Though it might often serve a good purpose to caution a jury to give “greater scrutiny” to testimony of such a witness cautionary language may otherwise be adequate. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442; United States v. Becker, 2 Cir., 62 F. 2d 1007, 1009; Wainer v. United States, 7 Cir., 82 F. 2d 305, affirmed 299 U.S. 92, 57 S.Ct. 79, 81 L.Ed.
58. Here it was. Nor was the refusal to charge as to “entrapment” erroneous. The defense was a denial that the respondent had sold any heroin at all not that he had been entrapped into making a sale. And of course the appellant was not entitled to a charge that the testimony of the narcotics agent was incredible as a matter of law.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Bishop, 367 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1966)
-
United States v. Swiderski, 539 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1976)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1917)
- United States v. Becker, 62 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1933)
- Neufield v. United States, 118 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
- Wainer v. United States, 299 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1936)
- Massenberg v. United States, 19 F.2d 62 (4th Cir. 1927)
- Wainer v. United States, 82 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1936)
- Le Prell v. United States, 192 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1951)