United States v. Barrington
| Decision Date | 21 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | Docket 26802.,No. 399,399 |
| Citation | 291 F.2d 481 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Walker BARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David P. Bicks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, and David R. Hyde, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Theodore Krieger, New York City (Louis L. Moses and Albert J. Krieger, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH* and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
Walker Barrington appeals his conviction for concealment and transportation of nearly a kilo of pure heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. The defendant seeks reversal claiming that the government did not prove that he knew that the packages involved contained narcotics or that he possessed the narcotics within the meaning of the second paragraph of § 174 which creates a presumption that possessors have knowledge that the narcotics were illegally imported. We find that there was ample evidence from which Judge Dawson, sitting without a jury, could find that these elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt and we affirm the conviction.
The testimony of the arresting narcotic agents, which Judge Dawson accepted, was as follows: On the evening of October 24, 1960, a man known as "Al," whom agent Leonard S. Schrier had been following left two packages wrapped in brown paper in locker number 116 at the East Side Airlines Terminal. Joined by agent Edward Guy, Schrier watched the locker until 1:15 in the morning of October 25, when Barrington approached the locker, removed the packages, covered them with a newspaper, and walked away. After he had taken four steps, moving about five feet, the agents arrested him, first announcing that they were federal narcotic agents.
Relying upon the in banc reversal of Nicholas Narducci's conviction in United States v. Santore, 2 Cir., 1960, 290 F.2d 51, Barrington contends that "possession" could not be found upon these facts. We disagree. Barrington controlled the packages; unlike Narducci his grasp was not momentary.
There was, moreover, ample evidence that Barrington knew that the packages contained narcotics. When asked by agent Schrier what was in the packages, he replied: He guessed that the packages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Thomas
-
United States v. Davis, 354
...to see how any possession could be more purposive than one incident to delivery and collection of the price. Cf. United States v. Barrington, 291 F.2d 481 (2 Cir. 1961). Beyond this the appeal is directed at several aspects of the charge — none of which, with one qualification noted below, ......
-
United States v. Palmiotto
...(2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied sub nom. Sumpter v. United States, 373 U.S. 953, 83 S.Ct. 1684, 10 L.Ed.2d 707 (1963); United States v. Barrington, 291 F.2d 481 (2d Cir. 1961); United States v. Santore, 290 F.2d 51, 64-65 (2d Cir. 1959), adhered to on rehearing in banc, 290 F.2d 74, 79 (1960),......
-
United States v. Gregory
...United States v. Santore, 290 F.2d 51, 64, 79 (2 Cir., 1960) — the brevity of the possession is irrelevant. See United States v. Barrington, 291 F.2d 481 (2 Cir., 1961). There was ample evidence that Sumpter held the bag and dropped it out of the car window into the gutter. Sumpter argues, ......