UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM DAVID ROSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant for aiding and abetting drug distribution.
William David Rose was convicted of distributing Schedule II and III drugs. The government's evidence showed Rose aided and abetted James Bryant in th…
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 Entrapment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this case, a jury convicted William David Rose on two counts of the knowing and intentional distribution of Schedule II and III drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, it was clearly shown that Rose wilfully aided and abetted one James Bryant in the actual distribution of the illegal products. The trial record is really devoid of any element of entrapment. Moreover, had such been the case, Rose took the witness stand and denied any participation whatsoever in the transaction. A directed verdict of not guilty could not have been justified.
Although himself denying any personal participation in the actual distribution of the contraband, Rose argued below and argues here that the proof offered on behalf of the government showed that his alleged participation was an “agent of the undercover government agent”, who actually acquired the drugs. Unfortunately, it was Rose who first approached the undercover agent and inquired as to whether he would like to purchase some high quality cocaine or speed. This inquiry resulted in the visit to Bryant and the illegal distribution. This consideration aside, this is a distri-. bution case and the appellate argument is crushed beneath the weight of our recent decisions in United States v. Johnson [opinion dated July 19, 1973] 481 F. 2d 645, and United States v. Miller [opinion dated August 6, 1973] 483 F. 2d 61.
The judgment of conviction is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The United States v. Oquendo, 505 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Fletcher, 487 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Earnest Johnson, 481 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Miller, 483 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1973)