MORRIS ORLANDO MCGREGOR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's conviction for selling narcotics was valid, rejecting his claims regarding speedy trial, hearsay, and other trial errors.
McGregor was convicted by a jury for selling and dispensing narcotic drugs. He appealed, raising several issues including a delay in indictment, admis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
McGregor was convicted by a jury under a four count indictment which charged him with selling and dispensing a narcotic drug in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a). We affirm.
McGregor’s argument that a six and one-half month delay between the time of the offense and the return of the indictment denied him the right to a speedy trial is unavailing. Delay in indictment, “so long as the applicable statute of limitations is followed, does not amount to a Sixth Amendment violation. In other words, the statute is controlling.” United States v. Grayson, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F. 2d 1073; McConnell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 402 F. 2d 852, cert. denied, 394 U.S. 933, 89 S.Ct. 1208, 22 L.Ed.2d 464; Harlow v. United Stated, 5 Cir. 1962, 301 F. 2d 361.
McGregor next complains tháí the hearsay testimony of a government agent concerning what a co-defendant told the agent in the absence of the defendant should have been but was not excluded. The statement of the co-defendant took place during a sale of ilarcotic tablets which formed part of the offenses charged against both McGregor and his co-defendant and was made in furtherance of the joint efforts .of both defendants to commit the crime charged. In these circumstances the statement was clearly admissible. Holsen v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F. 2d. 292; Lott v. United States, 5 Cir. 1952, 230 F. 2d. 915. Ñor can McGregor get any comfort out of Bruton v. United States, 1967, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, which, he argues, compelled the granting of his motion for a severance. The statement complained of was not a post crime confession of the co-defendant implicating McGregor, as in Bruton, but was made during the actual commission of the crime.
We have considered and find without merit McGregor’s further assertions of error that his cross-examination of a witness was unduly limited, that the government’s redirect examination of the witness was unduly broad, and that the Court’s instruction on entrapment was erroneous.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Skillman, 442 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Shafter W. Summers, 598 F.2d 450 (5th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Harlow v. United States, 301 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Skelton v. United States Courts, 394 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1969)
- Holmes v. California, 394 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1969)
- United States v. Grayson, 416 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Lott v. United States, 230 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Grady Monroe Holsen v. United States, 392 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1968)
- McCONNELL v. United States, 402 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1968)