United States v. Elba Luisa Morales

406 F.2d 1135
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided February 19, 1969·No. 32665_1·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant claims that a seller of narcotic drugs who fails to comply with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) may not be convicted for a violation of that section because a compliance would destroy the seller’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Appellant relies by analogy upon the United States Supreme Court holdings in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 716, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968).

We have held in four recent decisions of our court that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not provide a defense to a prosecution for selling narcotic drugs without the mandatory written order form required by 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). United States v. Oliveros, 398 F.2d 349 (2 Cir. 1968) (per curiam); United States v. Smith (2 Cir. October 1, 1968) (aff’d in open court); United States v. McLean (2 Cir. Dec. 9, 1968) (aff’d in open court); United States v. Minor, 398 F.2d 511 (2 Cir. 1968). We adhere to those rulings.

Conviction affirmed.

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

United States v. Elba Luisa Morales, 406 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir. 1969).

406 F.2d 1135 (United States v. Elba Luisa Morales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Joseph J. Mastrianni
420 F.2d 483 (Second Circuit, 1969)
Baughman v. United States
301 F. Supp. 509 (D. Minnesota, 1969)
United States v. Alejo Matos
409 F.2d 1245 (Second Circuit, 1969)