United States v. Glenn Frederick Finley

421 F.2d 172
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 11, 1970
Docket63-69
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 421 F.2d 172 (United States v. Glenn Frederick Finley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. Glenn Frederick Finley, 421 F.2d 172 (10th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Finley was found guilty of transferring marihuana in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a). In reliance on Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, he argues that the timely assertion of privilege under the Fifth Amendment precludes conviction. Leary considered the conviction of a transferee under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a) (2). The Supreme Court has held that the Leary decision *173 does not apply to the prosecution of a transfer under § 4742(a). See Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283. We followed Minor in our recent decision in United States v. Priest, 10 Cir., 419 F.2d 570.

The claim is made that the defendant was entrapped by an informer who was cooperating with an undercover government agent in an effort to obtain favorable consideration for an offense which he had committed. The government evidence is that the informer and agent gave the defendant an opportunity to commit an offense to which he was previously disposed. The conflicting testimony of the defendant presented an issue for jury determination. See Martinez v. United States, 10 Cir., 373 F.2d 810, 812, and McCarthy v. United States, 10 Cir., 399 F.2d 708, 710. The disagreement between the informer and the agent on some of the details of the transactions was unimportant. At the most it raised a credibility question for jury consideration. The court’s instructions on entrapment were full and proper, and the defendant did not object to them.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Ostrand
219 N.W.2d 509 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 F.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-glenn-frederick-finley-ca10-1970.