240 F.2d 949 (2nd Cir. 1957), 172, United States v. Sherman

Docket Nº:172, 24342.
Citation:240 F.2d 949
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph George SHERMAN, Appellant.
Case Date:February 04, 1957
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 949

240 F.2d 949 (2nd Cir. 1957)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Joseph George SHERMAN, Appellant.

Nos. 172, 24342.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 4, 1957

Argued Dec. 10, 1956.

Page 950

Henry A. Lowenberg, New York City, for appellant.

Paul W. Williams, U.S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (Malcolm Monroe and Maurice N. Nessen, Asst. U.S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction under an indictment charging sales of narcotics on three occasions in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. The evidence established the following facts: appellant and one Kalchinian, both addicted to the use of narcotics, became acquainted as a result of meeting several times in the office of the physician whom they were consulting in an effort to cure their addiction and in the pharmacy to which they took their prescriptions to be filled. After several casual greetings, they began to discuss their experiences in the use of narcotics. In response to a question, appellant told Kalchinian that he was then purchasing drugs. Kalchinian, who was not responding well to treatment, informed appellant of this fact and requested an introduction to appellant's supplier. After two or three such requests, appellant stated that the man was going out of business and for this reason he could not introduce appellant to him. Upon Kalchinian's asking, 'How can I then?' appellant said he might be able to get some drugs for him. To a subsequent inquiry appellant replied that he was working on it. Kalchinian asked how he could get in touch with appellant, but appellant suggested instead the following procedure. If and when he had drugs for Kalchinian he would telephone him and tell him what time to meet him. Appellant took Kalchinian's telephone number and designated a certain street corner as the meeting place. He said that he expected to purchase heroin at $25 for 1/16 ounce and that he would let Kalchinian have half that amount for $15, explaining that the additional $2.50 was for his cab fare and trouble. Kalchinian agreed to these arrangements, and several transfers took place. Later Kalchinian, who was awaiting sentence on a narcotic charge to which he had pleaded guilty and who had previously worked with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics

Page 951

on two cases, for the first time informed and Bureau of his dealings with appellant.

On the three dates charged in the indictment, agents observed Kalchinian exchange $15 for a small quantity of heroin contained in a glassine envelope concealed in an empty cigarette package. The government also proved, over appellant's objection, that he had twice before been convicted on narcotic charges: in 1942 for selling opium and in 1946 of possession of 720 grains of morphine in 5-grain capsules, 261 grains of heroin in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP