The Government of the Canal Zone v. Richard Franklin Griffith G. (Griffith)

Fifth Circuit

The Government of the Canal Zone v. Richard Franklin Griffith G. (Griffith)

459 F.2d 1036, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9557

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1972

Docket71-3102

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 1036 (The Government of the Canal Zone v. Richard Franklin Griffith G. (Griffith)) 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

The Government of the Canal Zone v. Richard Franklin Griffith G. (Griffith), 459 F.2d 1036, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9557 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from convictions for selling, dispensing, and distributing a narcotic drug (cocaine) in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704. Appellant was charged under informations filed .by the United States Attorney pursuant to the Canal Zone Code, Tit. 6, § 4011. He was -tried without a jury and found guilty of the offenses charged.

Appellant’s primary contention is that the Fifth Amendment requirement that infamous crimes be tried only upon grand jury indictment should be applied in the territory of the Canal Zone. We disagree. Article IV, § 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . .’’of the United States. This constitutional provision has been specifically held to authorize Congress to dispense with grand jury indictments in the territories of the United States. See Rivera v. Government of Virgin Islands, 3 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 988, in which it was held that Congress could dispense with grand jury indictments in criminal trials in the territory of the Virgin Islands.

The remaining issues raised by appellant,, through counsel and in his pro se brief, involve the questions whether the trial judge's articulated reasons for his findings on credibility rendered those findings improper and unconstitutional and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt. We have examined the record and find these arguments without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from convictions for selling, dispensing, and distributing a narcotic drug (cocaine) in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704. Appellant was charged under informations filed .by the United States Attorney pursuant to the Canal Zone Code, Tit. 6, § 4011. He was -tried without a jury and found guilty of the offenses charged.

Appellant’s primary contention is that the Fifth Amendment requirement that infamous crimes be tried only upon grand jury indictment should be applied in the territory of the Canal Zone. We disagree. Article IV, § 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . .’’of the United States. This constitutional provision has been specifically held to authorize Congress to dispense with grand jury indictments in the territories of the United States. See Rivera v. Government of Virgin Islands, 3 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 988, in which it was held that Congress could dispense with grand jury indictments in criminal trials in the territory of the Virgin Islands.

The remaining issues raised by appellant,, through counsel and in his pro se brief, involve the questions whether the trial judge's articulated reasons for his findings on credibility rendered those findings improper and unconstitutional and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt. We have examined the record and find these arguments without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 1036, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-government-of-the-canal-zone-v-richard-franklin-griffith-g-griffith-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack