Stacy Sanford Holley v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Stacy Sanford Holley v. United States

412 F.2d 851, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1969

Docket27071

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 412 F.2d 851 (Stacy Sanford Holley 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

Stacy Sanford Holley v. United States, 412 F.2d 851, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant Holley was found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on both counts of an indictment charging unlawful possession and transportation of distilled spirits in containers not bearing tax stamps in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5604(a) (1) and 5205(a) (2). Holley contends that he was denied due process of law because the federal agents destroyed the unstamped containers and the distilled spirits alleged to be contained therein. He argues that, at least, a sample of the alleged distilled spirits should have been preserved and introduced into evidence.

Three of the agents involved testified that they determined by taste and smell that each of the jugs contained moonshine whiskey and that there were no stamps on them. The agents were well experienced and were qualified to testify as experts. If the Government agents would preserve a sample of the alleged distilled spirits for use as evidence, contentions of the type here involved could be avoided and perhaps some time of the appellate courts could be saved. The issue has been raised in this circuit several times. However, the *852 law is conclusively settled against the contention of the appellant and the judgment must be affirmed. Driggers v. United States, 384 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1967); O’Neal v. United States, 341 F.2d 581 (5th Cir. 1965); Burney v. United States, 339 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant Holley was found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on both counts of an indictment charging unlawful possession and transportation of distilled spirits in containers not bearing tax stamps in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5604(a) (1) and 5205(a) (2). Holley contends that he was denied due process of law because the federal agents destroyed the unstamped containers and the distilled spirits alleged to be contained therein. He argues that, at least, a sample of the alleged distilled spirits should have been preserved and introduced into evidence.

Three of the agents involved testified that they determined by taste and smell that each of the jugs contained moonshine whiskey and that there were no stamps on them. The agents were well experienced and were qualified to testify as experts. If the Government agents would preserve a sample of the alleged distilled spirits for use as evidence, contentions of the type here involved could be avoided and perhaps some time of the appellate courts could be saved. The issue has been raised in this circuit several times. However, the *852 law is conclusively settled against the contention of the appellant and the judgment must be affirmed. Driggers v. United States, 384 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1967); O’Neal v. United States, 341 F.2d 581 (5th Cir. 1965); Burney v. United States, 339 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 851, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacy-sanford-holley-v-united-states-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack