GRADY MONROE HOLSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 co-defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege prevented him from being compelled to testify and that statements made by the co-defendant in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible.
Appellant was convicted of conspiring to sell narcotics. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not requiring his co-defendant, who was appeali…
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 Conspiracy To Sell Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant and Joseph McConnell were jointly indicted and separately tried for violations of the federal narcotics laws.1 Appellant was convicted on a jury verdict of conspiring to sell narcotics not in the original stamped package and without a written order. We affirm.
Appellant’s contention that the District Court erred in not requiring McConnell to testify in appellant’s behalf is without merit. McConnell was a co-defendant who was then in the process of appealing his conviction. He did not waive his fifth amendment privilege and could not therefore be made to testify. 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2268 at 410 (McNaughton rev. 1961).
It was not error to admit statements of McConnell made to federal undercover agents during the transaction in question outside the presence of appellant since they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy of which appellant was a member. United States v. Smith, 2 Cir. 1965, 343 F. 2d 607; Lott v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 230 F. 2d 915.
The nine month delay between the narcotics sale and appellant’s arrest did not deny appellant a speedy trial, especially since no prejudice was shown. United States v. Ewell, 1966, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627; Bruce v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 351 F. 2d 318.
We have examined appellant’s other specifications of error and find them utterly devoid of merit.
Affirmed.
. 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4704(a), 4705(a), 7237(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Rodriguez, 509 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Klein, 546 F.2d 1259 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Williamson, 450 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1966)
- Bruce v. United States, 351 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Lott v. United States, 230 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1956)
- United States v. Hurley Smith, 343 F.2d 607 (2d Cir. 1965)