326 F.2d 351 (7th Cir. 1963), 14089, United States v. Carter
|Citation:||326 F.2d 351|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||December 31, 1963|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Donald J. LaVarre, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Frank E. McDonald, U.S. Atty., John Powers Crowley, Asst. U.S. Atty., James P. O'Brien, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel, for appellee.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
CASTLE, Circuit Judge.
Johnny Carter, the defendant-appellant, was convicted following a trial before the court without a jury on a six-count indictment charging offenses 1 relating to the unlawful transfer, sale and possession of narcotics on two specific occasions some four months apart. He was found guilty on all six counts and a general sentence of imprisonment for a period of six years was imposed. Defendant's appeal is prosecuted in forma pauperis.
Defendant's sole contention is that the judgment order of the District Court should be reversed on the ground that the record establishes entrapment as a matter of law.
In resolving the issue raised by defendant's contention we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; United States v. Coduto, 7 Cir., 284 F.2d 464. As a reviewing court it is not our function to weigh the evidence and determine credibility of witnesses. United States v. Jones, 7 Cir., 302 F.2d 46; United States v. Ziemer, 7 Cir., 291 F.2d 100. An examination of the record reveals testimony of government witnesses clearly sufficient to warrant the trial court in finding that the defendant acquired, possessed, transferred, sold and delivered marihuana and cocaine as charged in the indictment. The testimony of government narcotic agents and a government informer as to these activities is direct and positive. The sales and deliveries involved were in each case made to a government narcotic agent pursuant to previous arrangements between the defendant and the informer. The predisposition of the defendant to commit the offenses is equally supported by the record. There is testimony of conversations in which the defendant gave assurances
as to the quality of the narcotics he handled and vouched for accuracy of measure as to the quantity...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP