United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson

340 F.2d 989, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6919

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1965

Docket9271_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 340 F.2d 989 (United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson, 340 F.2d 989, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6919 (4th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is principally insisted upon appeal that the testimony of two undercover agents who testified for the prosecution should have been stricken, reliance being placed upon Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 441.

In light, however, of the reputation of the defendants for engagement in the whisky business, known to the regular Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents, and the nature and extent of their supervision and control over the activities of the undercover agents, we think that the fact that the amount of their compensation was later to be determined by responsible officials on the basis of an appraisal of the extent and quality of the work of the undercover agents is not fatal to their competence as witnesses.

This case differs from Williamson. It is more akin to Hill v. United States, 5 Cir., 328 F.2d 988.

Despite the interesting argument ably presented by counsel for the defendants, therefore, we conclude that there was no error in the District Court’s refusal to strike the testimony of the undercover agents.

There were secondary contentions on appeal, which we find to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is principally insisted upon appeal that the testimony of two undercover agents who testified for the prosecution should have been stricken, reliance being placed upon Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 441.

In light, however, of the reputation of the defendants for engagement in the whisky business, known to the regular Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents, and the nature and extent of their supervision and control over the activities of the undercover agents, we think that the fact that the amount of their compensation was later to be determined by responsible officials on the basis of an appraisal of the extent and quality of the work of the undercover agents is not fatal to their competence as witnesses.

This case differs from Williamson. It is more akin to Hill v. United States, 5 Cir., 328 F.2d 988.

Despite the interesting argument ably presented by counsel for the defendants, therefore, we conclude that there was no error in the District Court’s refusal to strike the testimony of the undercover agents.

There were secondary contentions on appeal, which we find to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.2d 989, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-coolie-john-crim-harold-boyd-spradley-and-booker-t-ca4-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack