Nathaniel Simmons v. United States of America, Gladys Simmons v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Nathaniel Simmons v. United States of America, Gladys Simmons v. United States

220 F.2d 377, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3309

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1954

Docket11914, 11915

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 220 F.2d 377 (Nathaniel Simmons v. United States of America, Gladys Simmons v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nathaniel Simmons v. United States of America, Gladys Simmons v. United States, 220 F.2d 377, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3309 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appeals followed convictions on a number of counts charging violations of the narcotic laws. * The principal contention of appellants is that the court erred in not requiring the Government to call as a witness an informer who, at the behest of a police officer who did testify at the trial, had participated in the transactions which led to the convictions on several of the counts. This contention is inconsistent with Dear Check Quong v. United States, 82 U.S. App.D.C. 8, 160 F.2d 251, and we think the present case presents no reason for reconsideration of that decision.

Error is also laid to the trial court’s denial of oral motions made during the trial that the Government be required to produce for inspection by the defense certain notes or statements which the witness, testifying for the Government, had made during his investigation of the case. The motions were not within Rule 16 or Rule 17(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C., interpreted in Fryer v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 34, 207 F.2d 134, certiorari denied, 346 U.S. 885, 74 S.Ct. 135. That case accordingly is not applicable. Furthermore, the facts do not come within the limited situation discussed in Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 418-419, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447. Rather, we think Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322, applies. The discretion there held to reside in the trial court in comparable circumstances cannot be said to have been abused in this case.

We have also considered other questions presented and find no ground for reversal.

Affirmed.

*

53 Stat. 271, as amended 58 Stat. 721, 26 U.S.C. § 2553(a) (1952); 53 Stat. 272, 26 U.S.C. § 2554(a) (1952); 53 Stat. 281, 26 U.S.C. § 2593(a) (1952); 35 Stat. 614, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1952).

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

PER CURIAM.

These appeals followed convictions on a number of counts charging violations of the narcotic laws. * The principal contention of appellants is that the court erred in not requiring the Government to call as a witness an informer who, at the behest of a police officer who did testify at the trial, had participated in the transactions which led to the convictions on several of the counts. This contention is inconsistent with Dear Check Quong v. United States, 82 U.S. App.D.C. 8, 160 F.2d 251, and we think the present case presents no reason for reconsideration of that decision.

Error is also laid to the trial court’s denial of oral motions made during the trial that the Government be required to produce for inspection by the defense certain notes or statements which the witness, testifying for the Government, had made during his investigation of the case. The motions were not within Rule 16 or Rule 17(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C., interpreted in Fryer v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 34, 207 F.2d 134, certiorari denied, 346 U.S. 885, 74 S.Ct. 135. That case accordingly is not applicable. Furthermore, the facts do not come within the limited situation discussed in Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 418-419, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447. Rather, we think Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322, applies. The discretion there held to reside in the trial court in comparable circumstances cannot be said to have been abused in this case.

We have also considered other questions presented and find no ground for reversal.

Affirmed.

*

53 Stat. 271, as amended 58 Stat. 721, 26 U.S.C. § 2553(a) (1952); 53 Stat. 272, 26 U.S.C. § 2554(a) (1952); 53 Stat. 281, 26 U.S.C. § 2593(a) (1952); 35 Stat. 614, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1952).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 F.2d 377, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathaniel-simmons-v-united-states-of-america-gladys-simmons-v-united-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack