United States v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 09 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | Docket 73-2041.,No. 926,926 |
| Citation | 495 F.2d 552 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael ALEXANDER, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John T. Elfvin, U. S. Atty. W. D. N. Y., Buffalo, N. Y. (David G. Larimer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
John J. LaDuca, Rochester, N. Y., (LaDuca, Offen & LeChase, Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, and SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Alexander appeals from his conviction for distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), after a trial before Judge Burke and a jury. In addition to time already served,1 Alexander was also sentenced to a three-year special parole term.
Alexander's principal claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to compel the government to disclose the identity of an informant known to the defense only as "Randy." Randy's testimony, Alexander urges, would substantially have bolstered his claim of entrapment. We find no merit to this contention and, accordingly, affirm the conviction.
On September 26, 1972, Alexander was approached at his home in Rochester by Randy, who introduced him to David A. Lucier, an undercover agent with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. At trial, Alexander admitted that in reply to Lucier's request for drugs, he responded that he could obtain some in ten or fifteen minutes. Although no drugs were transferred at this intitial encounter, at a second episode later the same day Alexander's friend Johnny Lee Fulton sold heroin to Lucier. Alexander's testimony indicated that he played a pivotal role in the actual sale by leading Lucier to Fulton and arranging the sale of "half a bundle" of heroin for $85.
Quite simply, Alexander has been hoist with his own petard. Even had Randy been available and fully supported Alexander's account of the day's events, the appellant's own damning admissions adequately demonstrated his independent willingness to facilitate a drug sale. This evidence of a predisposition to commit the crime charged was sufficient to demolish Alexander's contention that he was entrapped. See, e. g. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). Accordingly, since disclosure of an informant's identity is required only when necessary for a fair disposition of the case, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), we do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wilson
...526 F.2d 1319, 1329-30 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 821, 97 S.Ct. 69, 50 L.Ed.2d 82 (1976); United States v. Alexander, 495 F.2d 552, 553 (2d Cir.1974) (per curiam). 100 United States v. Kahaner, 203 F.Supp. 78, 84 (S.D.N.Y.1962) (footnote omitted). See also United States v. Lieber......
-
U.S., In re
...the privilege cannot be invoked. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); United States v. Alexander, 495 F.2d 552, 553 (2d Cir. 1974). The burden of establishing the need for disclosure is upon the person who seeks it. United States v. Prueitt, 540 ......
-
U.S. v. Turbide
... Page 1053 ... 558 F.2d 1053 ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, ... Cesar TURBIDE and Nelson Perez, Defendants-Appellants ... Nos ... Fredia, 319 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1963) ("Sally"); United States ... Page 1060 ... v. Alexander, 495 F.2d 552 (2d Cir. 1974) ("Randy"); United States v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1975) ... ...
-
Brown v. State
...contact he never saw the undercover officers again. This evidence of predisposition precludes an entrapment defense. United States v. Alexander, 495 F.2d 552 (2nd Cir. 1974). The fact that the government affords the opportunity or facility for the commission of an offense charged does not c......