UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIE FRANK HART, A/K/A "MIAMI", AND JERRY HAMMOND, A/K/A "TADPOLE", DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 magistrate was not required to permit cross-examination to elicit the informer's identity and that the confrontation clause was not violated by refusal to produce a written statement.
Appellants were convicted of distribution of cocaine. One appellant, Hart, complained of errors at a preliminary hearing, including the magistrate's r…
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 Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellants were convicted by a jury of distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Hart complains of alleged errors at the preliminary hearing conducted by a magistrate. Consistent with the spirit of F.R.Cr.P. 5.1 and under our decision in Harris v. U. S., 458 F. 2d 670, cert. denied, sub nom., Scott et al. v. U. S., 409 U.S. 888, 93 S.Ct. 195, 34 L.Ed.2d 145 (1972), the magistrate was not required to permit Hart to elicit from the government witness, by cross-examination, the identity of the informer. Arguably Coleman et al., v. Burnett, 155 U.S.App.D.C., 477 F. 2d 1187 (1973), is contrary, but it is not wholly consistent with F.R. Cr.P. 5.1(a), and we decline to follow it.
The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment was not violated by the magistrate’s refusal to require the DEA agent-witness to produce a written statement of the undercover agent. Harris v. U. S., supra. Here, as in Harris, the appellant [Hart] confronted at trial the person whose statement was sought and had the opportunity to cross-examine him, and did so. The statement itself was clearly Jencks Act material.
Counsel for appellant Hammond has filed a motion asking that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel and also has filed an Anders v. California
brief raising a single evidentiary question. The issue is without merit. We have independently examined the entire record and find no reversible error relating to Hammond. The motion of his counsel for leave to withdraw is granted.
The convictions are affirmed.
. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hart v. United States, 565 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Harris, 458 F.2d 670 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. May Dep't Stores Co., 409 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1972)
- McIntyre v. North Carolina, 409 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1972)