U.S. v. Willis, 79-5621
| Decision Date | 28 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-5621,79-5621 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clyde P. WILLIS, Jr., Robert H. Love and Christopher R. Pieser, Defendants-Appellants. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Louis B. Merhige, New Orleans, La., Andrew C. Pavlick, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
John P. Volz, U. S. Atty., Ronald A. Fonseca, Robert J. Boitmann, Asst. U. S Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before WISDOM, GARZA and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.
Following our opinion in United States v. Willis, 639 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir. 1981), the United States has submitted a petition for en banc consideration of that case, based upon the argument that our holding is inconsistent with this court's earlier holding in United States v. Alfrey, 620 F.2d 551 (5th Cir. 1980).
In Willis, we held that the evidence introduced by the government was insufficient to sustain the conviction of crew members Love and Pieser for conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. In short, the government simply ignored its burden of introducing some evidence that would indicate that the crew members knew their ship was carrying marijuana. 639 F.2d at 1338-39.
The United States argues in this petition that Alfrey stands for the principle that a crew member's mere presence aboard a boat carrying a large quantity of marijuana is adequate to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess and import. But Alfrey should not be read so broadly. In contrast to the trial in Willis, the prosecutor in Alfrey introduced the following evidence to support the knowledge of the crew members:
1) the boarding party noticed the smell of marijuana aboard the ship before the hatch was opened;
2) several burnt marijuana cigarettes were lying in open view in the wheelhouse and a small quantity of marijuana was lying on a table in the salon;
3) the ship's sailing permit showed that the vessel had been cleared to sail from Colombia with a crew of three men only ten days earlier; and
4) the vessel engaged in highly suspicious activity with another boat for several hours prior to the boarding.
620 F.2d at 553-54. The panel opinion in Alfrey recited all of these facts and specifically relied upon the latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Chaparro-Almeida, CHAPARRO-ALMEID
...is of course not sufficient to sustain their convictions. In United States v. Willis, 639 F.2d 1335 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 646 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1981), we reversed the convictions of two crew members for conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib......
-
U.S. v. Elkins, s. 84-1604
...1335, 1338 (5th Cir.1981) (marijuana concealed, no odor detected, only evidence was crew members' mere presence), reh'g denied, 646 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1981) (government ignored burden of introducing some evidence indicating that crew members knew their ship was carrying marijuana); United St......
-
U.S. v. Niver
...show more than the mere presence of a large quantity of contraband on the vessel in order to convict the defendant. United States v. Willis, 646 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1981). The cases cited by Niver, however, involved situations where the evidence did not support an inference of knowledge of t......
-
U.S. v. Cruz-Valdez
...States v. Hernandez, 668 F.2d 824 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); United States v. MacPherson, 664 F.2d 69 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Willis, 646 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1981); and United States v. Rojas, 537 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1061, 97 S.Ct. 785, 50 L.Ed.2d 777 (1977),......