THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CANAL ZONE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD FRANKLIN GRIFFITH G. (GRIFFITH), DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 Fifth Amendment's grand jury indictment requirement does not apply to the Canal Zone.
Appellant was convicted of selling cocaine in the Canal Zone. He appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's grand jury indictment requirement should…
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 Grand Jury Indictment Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from convictions for selling, dispensing, and distributing a narcotic drug (cocaine) in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704. Appellant was charged under informations filed .by the United States Attorney pursuant to the Canal Zone Code, Tit. 6, § 4011. He was -tried without a jury and found guilty of the offenses charged.
Appellant’s primary contention is that the Fifth Amendment requirement that infamous crimes be tried only upon grand jury indictment should be applied in the territory of the Canal Zone. We disagree. Article IV, § 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . .’’of the United States. This constitutional provision has been specifically held to authorize Congress to dispense with grand jury indictments in the territories of the United States. See Rivera v. Government of Virgin Islands, 3 Cir., 1967, 375 F. 2d 988, in which it was held that Congress could dispense with grand jury indictments in criminal trials in the territory of the Virgin Islands.
The remaining issues raised by appellant,, through counsel and in his pro se brief, involve the questions whether the trial judge's articulated reasons for his findings on credibility rendered those findings improper and unconstitutional and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt. We have examined the record and find these arguments without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sierra v. The Gov't OF the Canal Zone, 546 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Gov't OF THE Canal Zone v. Scott, 502 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Rivera v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 375 F.2d 988 (3d Cir. 1967)