United States v. Cobb, 508
| Citation | 396 F.2d 158 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket 32148.,No. 508,508 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Major COBB and Thomas Spivey, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Joseph I. Stone, New York City, for appellants. Stone, Reichenbaum & Diller, New York City, for defendant-appellants.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for the Southern District of New York, New York City (Roger J. Hawke and Pierre N. Leval, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MOORE, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were charged with conspiring together with others to receive, conceal, buy, sell and transport, marihuana which had been imported contrary to law, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. Two of appellants' alleged co-conspirators, Murray Lapidus and Danny Klein, pleaded guilty in California to another indictment charging them with participation in the same conspiracy and were awaiting sentence on that charge at the time they testified as government witnesses at appellants' trial. Both appellants were convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years. On appeal they raise six points, all of which we find to be lacking in merit.
(1) The proof clearly established a single conspiracy in which both appellants participated. There is no basis for appellants' characterization of the operation as "three separate conspiracies" and that their acts were those of an "independent contractor."
(2) There was sufficient testimony evidence that both appellants had possession of marihuana in order to establish the presumption, found in section 176a, of knowledge of illegal importation from evidence of possession. There was also evidence that at least appellant Cobb was aware of the fact that the marihuana came from Mexico.
(3) Appellants were not prejudiced by the fact that the government witnesses, Lapidus and Klein, had not been sentenced at the time they testified. This could only be a factor bearing upon their credibility. Such an argument was made to the trial judge, yet he, fully aware of all the circumstances, chose to believe the witnesses. See United States v. Franzese, 392 F.2d 954, 963 (2d Cir.1968).
(4) The trunk loads of marihuana were properly admitted into evidence. Marihuana from the so-called "lost shipment" was not the only marihuana introduced at the trial as claimed by appellants. There was sufficient testimony connecting all the marihuana with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anderson
...United States v. Ahmad (D.C.Pa. 1971) 53 F.R.D. 186, 193-194; United States v. Cobb (D.C. N.Y. 1967) 271 F.Supp. 159, 163, aff'd., 2d Cir., 396 F.2d 158; United States v. Gleason (D.C.N.Y. 1967) 265 F.Supp. 880, 884-885. In this case, though, the so-called exculpatory evidence consisted of ......
-
Lewis v. United States
...877, 89 S.Ct. 176, 21 L.Ed.2d 149 (1968); United States v. Cobb, 271 F.Supp. 159, 162 (S.D.N. Y.1967), aff'd on other grounds, 396 F.2d 158 (2d Cir. 1968), or upon flat assertions, apparently not distinguishing between government witnesses known and unknown to the defendant, that conviction......
-
Wilhelm v. Whyte
...Cf., United States v. Ahmad (D.C.Pa.1971) 53 F.R.D. 186, 193-194; United States v. Cobb (D.C.N.Y.1967) 271 F.Supp. 159, 163, aff'd, 2nd Cir., 396 F.2d 158; United States v. Gleason (D.C.N.Y.1967) 265 F.Supp. 880, 884-885. . . . We believe the Hamric principle as further defined in Anderson ......
-
People v. Jones
...full trial record. See, e.g., United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 577; United States v. Cobb, 271 F.Supp. 159 aff'd on other grounds, 396 F.2d 158 (2nd Cir). CPL § 240.20(1)(g) provides little assistance in resolving this ...