U.S. v. McCormick, Nos. 77-1330

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL; WIDENER
Citation565 F.2d 286
Parties2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 785 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Wagner McCORMICK, Appellant (three cases). UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Percy Perrine CARTER, Appellant (three cases). UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Louis Martin WEINSTEIN, Appellant (two cases). to 77-1337.
Docket NumberNos. 77-1330
Decision Date09 January 1978

Page 286

565 F.2d 286
2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 785
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
James Wagner McCORMICK, Appellant (three cases).
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Percy Perrine CARTER, Appellant (three cases).
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Louis Martin WEINSTEIN, Appellant (two cases).
Nos. 77-1330 to 77-1337.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued Aug. 10, 1977.
Decided Nov. 11, 1977.
Certiorari Denied Jan. 9, 1978.
See 98 S.Ct. 747.

Stuart A. Saunders, Hampton, Va. (Saunders, Rogers & Saunders, Hampton, Va., on brief), for appellant in No. 77-1333 and No. 77-1336.

Elwood H. Richardson, Jr., Hampton, Va., for appellant in Nos. 77-1330, 77-1332, and 77-1335.

Malcolm Parks, III, Hampton, Va. (Maloney, Yeatts, Balfour, Ayers & Barr, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant in Nos. 77-1331, 77-1334, and 77-1337; Justin W. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va.

Page 287

(Roger T. Williams, Executive Asst. U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., and William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee in Nos. 77-1330 through 77-1337.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

James Wagner McCormick, Percy Perrine Carter, and Louis Martin Weinstein appeal from their convictions of various drug-related offenses under Chapter 13, Title 21, of the United States Code. All appellants were convicted of two counts of conspiracy to distribute Schedule II controlled substances, one count each of cocaine and methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Additionally, McCormick and Carter were convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 by aiding and abetting the distribution of controlled substances, one count each for cocaine and methamphetamine hydrochloride. The three were tried together, Weinstein before a jury, while Carter and McCormick were tried to the district court. They present numerous issues for review.

On July 13, 1976, special agent Richard Broughton of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and a confidential informant met with defendant Louis Weinstein at a delicatessen, the Delly, in Hampton, Virginia. The informant introduced Broughton to Weinstein as the man who wanted "to cop the oz.," meaning to purchase an ounce of narcotics. Weinstein informed Broughton that defendant Percy Carter had been at the Delly, but now was at his residence waiting for Broughton and the informant. Broughton and the informant then went to Carter's residence, but soon all three returned to the Delly and met with Weinstein. Weinstein stated that he had been trying to reach "his man," but that so far he had been unsuccessful.

After a short stop at a pool hall near the Delly, all four men went to the informant's residence. Weinstein continued efforts to contact "his man," and during this time began to refer to him as "Jim." Carter assisted in the search by making telephone calls at Weinstein's direction. During this time, Weinstein suggested that Carter try a particular telephone number, stating that Jim sometimes could be found at that number. Testimony indicated that this telephone number belonged to defendant James McCormick's brother Jay. During the remainder of the evening's futile efforts to contact Weinstein's "man," Carter also began to refer to him as "Jim," and commented that Jim's mother ran a ceramic shop in the Tidewater Virginia area. McCormick's father owns a ceramic shop in Newport News. The purchase price of the cocaine was set (apparently with Carter) at $1400.

The next day, July 14, Broughton and the informant arranged to meet with Weinstein at a restaurant, but on arriving found Carter there instead. "Jim" still had not been talked to, and the three passed the time playing pool and listening to Carter's accounts of previous marihuana and cocaine transactions. Broughton, Carter, and the informant later met with Weinstein, and then returned to the informant's residence to wait for Weinstein to contact "Jim." Weinstein finally was successful, and early that evening Broughton, Carter, and the informant met with Weinstein at a pool hall near the delicatessen. Broughton and Weinstein went into a back room, where Broughton paid Weinstein $1400. Weinstein took the money, left the pool hall, and came under the surveillance of agent Stanley Burroughs of the DEA. Burroughs watched Weinstein enter an automobile parked immediately in front of the poolroom, and identified the driver of the auto as defendant James McCormick. McCormick and Weinstein drove to a nearby shopping center, where Burroughs observed Weinstein "handling something." After parking for about ten minutes, McCormick drove Weinstein back to the pool hall, and when Weinstein exited the car, Burroughs observed a "white object" in Weinstein's left hand.

While Weinstein and McCormick were together, Broughton became apprehensive

Page 288

that Weinstein might have stolen $1400. Carter, however, provided reassurance, and stated that he and Weinstein had been doing business with "Jim" for a long time, and that the dope would be good. On Weinstein's return, he gave a plastic bag containing white powder to Broughton, and provided advice on how the powder, which Weinstein said was cocaine and which chemical analysis later proved to be cocaine, could be cut.

Agent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Eben v. State, No. 3525
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • September 7, 1979
    ...P.2d 55, 60-61 (Alaska 1968), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 850, 90 S.Ct. 107, 24 L.Ed.2d 99 (1969). 24 See, e. g., United States v. McCormick, 565 F.2d 286, 289 n.4 (4th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 (1978); United States v. Gaynor, 472 F.2d 899, 899-900 (2......
  • U.S. v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., No. 81-5157
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 27, 1983
    ...United States v. Gresko, 632 F.2d 1128, 1131 (4th Cir.1980) (sufficient evidence to take question to jury); United States v. McCormick, 565 F.2d 286, 289 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 (1978); Joyner v. United States, 547 F.2d 1199, 1203 (4th Cir.1......
  • U.S. v. Chindawongse, Nos. 82-5265
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 28, 1985
    ...v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 813 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Dockins, 659 F.2d 15, 16-17 (4th Cir.1981); United States v. McCormick, 565 F.2d 286, 289-90 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 B. The Confrontation Clause Siripan also argues that his six......
  • U.S. v. Santiago, No. 77-2021
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1978
    ...fulfillment of that critical condition. United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1298 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. McCormick,565 F.2d 286, 289 n.5 (4th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769; United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 422-23 (5th Cir. 1977), ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Eben v. State, No. 3525
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • September 7, 1979
    ...P.2d 55, 60-61 (Alaska 1968), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 850, 90 S.Ct. 107, 24 L.Ed.2d 99 (1969). 24 See, e. g., United States v. McCormick, 565 F.2d 286, 289 n.4 (4th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 (1978); United States v. Gaynor, 472 F.2d 899, 899-900 (2......
  • U.S. v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., No. 81-5157
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 27, 1983
    ...United States v. Gresko, 632 F.2d 1128, 1131 (4th Cir.1980) (sufficient evidence to take question to jury); United States v. McCormick, 565 F.2d 286, 289 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 (1978); Joyner v. United States, 547 F.2d 1199, 1203 (4th Cir.1......
  • U.S. v. Chindawongse, Nos. 82-5265
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 28, 1985
    ...v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 813 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Dockins, 659 F.2d 15, 16-17 (4th Cir.1981); United States v. McCormick, 565 F.2d 286, 289-90 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769 B. The Confrontation Clause Siripan also argues that his six......
  • U.S. v. Santiago, No. 77-2021
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1978
    ...fulfillment of that critical condition. United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1298 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. McCormick,565 F.2d 286, 289 n.5 (4th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 747, 54 L.Ed.2d 769; United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 422-23 (5th Cir. 1977), ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT