O. C. BROWN AND LEWIS BROWN, APPELLANTS,
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 possession of distilled spirits without proper stamps does not pose a danger of self-incrimination under the relevant statutes.
Appellants were convicted for possessing distilled spirits in containers lacking proper Internal Revenue stamps. They argued their Fifth Amendment rig…
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 Possession Of Distilled Spirits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On this appeal, the appellants seek to bring themselves within the rule of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889, and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, in which the Supreme Court held that the accused persons could not be convicted criminally for failure to comply with the statutory requirements requiring them to register and buy a stamp to permit them to engage in the wagering business. These appellants were convicted of having in their possession distilled spirits in containers which did not bear the proper Internal Revenue stamps.
Perhaps if this prosecution had occurred under an appropriate statute that existed during the short life of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, appellants could properly equate their situation to the appellants in Marchetti. As it is, however, we are informed by the government’s brief, and it is not disputed, (a matter of which we can take judicial notice) that possession of distilled spirits is legal to some extent in every one of the fifty states of the union. Therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with those district courts in addition to the trial court here, which have held that there is no danger of self incrimination resulting from the requirement of Sections 5205(a) (2) and 5604(a) (1) relating to the placing of stamps and taxing of distilled spirits.
We have also considered the supplementary brief filed pro se by the appellant O. C. Brown and find no merit in it.
The judgment was affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Dryden v. United States, 403 F.2d 1008 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Ford Grant v. United States, 407 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Loy Buford Hall v. United States, 407 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1968)
- Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1968)