397 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1968), 16230, United States v. Haden

Docket Nº:16230.
Citation:397 F.2d 460
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert HADEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:July 01, 1968
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 460

397 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1968)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


Albert HADEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16230.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 1, 1968

Page 461

Terence F. MacCarthy, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant; Thomas D. Decker, Chicago, Ill., or counsel.

Eugene Robinson, Thomas A. Foran, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee; John Peter Lulinski, Gerald M. Werksman, Eugene Robinson, Asst. U.S. Attys., of counsel.

Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, and HASTINGS and KILEY, Circuit Judges.

HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant-defendant Albert Haden appeals from a judgment of conviction entered February 14, 1967, after a jury found him guilty of transferring narcotic drugs without the required order form in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a). 1 The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years' imprisonment.

The jury found him not guilty on counts charging him with distributing narcotic drugs outside their original stamped package in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a) and with knowingly transporting and concealing drugs unlawfully imported into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.

The evidence, viewed 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 (1942), follows. In May, 1962, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics learned that appellant had written to a German chemical firm inquiring about processes for the conversion of morphine sulphate to diacetyl-morphine (heroin) and that he had written other foreign chemical firms, one of them in November, 1962, about the processing or supplying of opium alkaloids. On June 19, 1963, a federal narcotics agent, posing as a German chemist, called on appellant at his home in Chicago, Illinois. The agent told appellant he had been referred to him by an employee of the German chemical firm and wanted to talk with him about the manufacture of alkaloids. Appellant denied writing to the German firm and terminated the conversation.

The agent made the same representations in a letter mailed to appellant July 2, 1963. In the letter he listed a telephone number by which appellant could reach him.

Two weeks later, on July 15, 1963, appellant telephoned the agent and arranged a meeting at appellant's home. At the meeting appellant told the agent that he wanted to manufacture heroin, but that his earlier attempts to obtain the process from foreign chemical companies

Page 462

and from scientific literature were unsuccessful. He offered to pay the agent for teaching him the process. The agent pretended to be surprised and reluctant. Appellant stated that he had spent a sizable amount of money in his efforts to produce heroin, and showed the agent a basement laboratory where he said he had conducted his experiments. In response to the agent's question about the quality of morphine base used in his experiments, appellant said he had used morphine sulphate as a base. At the close of the meeting he told the agent to meet him again on July 17 at a Chicago hotel.

At their July 17 meeting the agent offered to assist appellant for a fee of $5,000. Appellant accepted the offer. He told the agent he could get large quantities of morphine sulphate tablets through an employee of a Detroit chemical company. The agent then told appellant that if the morphine sulphate was in tablet form he would want a sample of the tablets for analysis. Appellant said he would provide a sample and asked the agent to call him on July 19 to determine whether the sample had been obtained.

The agent called appellant on July 19. Appellant informed him that he had not been able to obtain the morphine sulphate and that it would take four to six weeks to obtain it. Appellant asked how he could contact the agent. The agent told appellant he had no fixed address, but would contact appellant.

In a letter mailed to appellant August 26 from New York, the agent listed an Indianapolis address at which he could be reached. He also stated that he would call appellant should he come to Chicago.

One and one-half months later on October 7 the agent called appellant. Appellant arranged a meeting on October 8. At that meeting he told the agent he had been unable to obtain the morphine sulphate tablets. He asked the agent what equipment would be required to demonstrate the process for producing heroin, and the agent said he would furnish a list. At appellant's request the agent agreed to produce five 100-gram lots of heroin for appellant's instruction using morphine sulphate as a base. The agent said he had to return temporarily to Germany and would contact appellant on his return about November 15, 1963.

On November 20, the agent again called appellant and the latter arranged a meeting. At that meeting appellant reported that he had been unable to obtain the morphine sulphate. The agent indicated doubt about appellant's sincerity and suggested they forget the project. Appellant assured the agent that he was serious about learning to produce heroin and asked for the list of necessary equipment and materials. The agent then read a list of laboratory equipment and chemicals. Appellant told the agent how payment would be made and what quality and yield he would consider acceptable. Other details of the project were discussed.

The agent called appellant on December 3 and appellant arranged a meeting on December 5 at a Chicago hotel. At the meeting, after learning that appellant had not obtained the morphine sulphate, the agent announced he was backing out of the project. Appellant reaffirmed his sincerity and asked the agent to contact him near the end of January, 1964.

The agent called appellant on February 17, 1964. Appellant arranged a...

To continue reading