Jesse Huie Maddox v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Jesse Huie Maddox v. United States

337 F.2d 234

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1964

Docket21189

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 337 F.2d 234 (Jesse Huie Maddox v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesse Huie Maddox v. United States, 337 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction of appellant on this four count indictment for violation of the liquor laws is affirmed. The testimony of the federal agent concerning conversations he heard over an electronics listening device, under the circumstances of this case, is admissible. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270. There is no merit in the contention that the government had the burden of showing that agents operating the listening device were familiar with the mechanics of the device. There is no merit in the argument that the evidence tending to prove the guilt of the appellant was insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Moreover, if there had been a failure to prove the count dealing with alleged possession by appellant of non-tax-paid liquor on May 21st and May 28th, such failure would not affect the results, because the sentence of two-years was below the maximum that could have been imposed on the remaining counts in the indictment. See Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 558.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction of appellant on this four count indictment for violation of the liquor laws is affirmed. The testimony of the federal agent concerning conversations he heard over an electronics listening device, under the circumstances of this case, is admissible. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270. There is no merit in the contention that the government had the burden of showing that agents operating the listening device were familiar with the mechanics of the device. There is no merit in the argument that the evidence tending to prove the guilt of the appellant was insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Moreover, if there had been a failure to prove the count dealing with alleged possession by appellant of non-tax-paid liquor on May 21st and May 28th, such failure would not affect the results, because the sentence of two-years was below the maximum that could have been imposed on the remaining counts in the indictment. See Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 330 F.2d 558.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 F.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-huie-maddox-v-united-states-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack