United States v. Gunie Boyd Trimmings

Second Circuit

United States v. Gunie Boyd Trimmings

334 F.2d 234, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 1964

Docket496, Docket 28858

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 334 F.2d 234 (United States v. Gunie Boyd Trimmings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Gunie Boyd Trimmings, 334 F.2d 234, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case follows the familiar pattern wherein a “special employee” introduces a federal narcotics agent to an addict who allegedly then sells narcotics to the agent, under observation by a surveilling agent. The defendant, Trimmings, having a previous federal and several state narcotics convictions, testified that the special employee had ingratiated himself by the gift of two $5 bags of heroin and subsequently enlisted Trimmings’ aid in delivering an ounce of heroin to the agent. The special employee, called at the suggestion of the judge, who was trying the case without a jury, admitted that he was a substantial dealer in narcotics; that he had been arrested for a federal narcotics violation some 19 months before the incident here at issue; that he had been released on nominal bail of $500 (in lieu of the $50,000 initially fixed) in consideration of agreeing to act as a “special employee”; and that he had worked as such on 29 cases with agents of the Bureau of Narcotics. However, he denied any dealings with Trimmings, who, he asserted, had asked him ti> help in locating customers — this leading to the introduction of Trimmings to the agent.

The spectacle of the United States failing to prosecute a criminal charge against a dealer in narcotics, so long as he engages in large scale pushing as a “special employee,” is one which *235 we find exceedingly unattractive. But whether the special employee induced Trimmings to make the instant sale, as Trimmings alleged, was an issue of fact, for determination by the trial judge. Since he was “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of entrapment does not stand up in this case” and the testimony was sufficient, if believed, to warrant that conclusion, existing rules of law render us powerless to interfere. Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859 (1958).

The Court expresses its appreciation to Joseph J. Ackell, Esq., who, as assigned counsel, argued Trimmings’ appeal with great sincerity and ability.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case follows the familiar pattern wherein a “special employee” introduces a federal narcotics agent to an addict who allegedly then sells narcotics to the agent, under observation by a surveilling agent. The defendant, Trimmings, having a previous federal and several state narcotics convictions, testified that the special employee had ingratiated himself by the gift of two $5 bags of heroin and subsequently enlisted Trimmings’ aid in delivering an ounce of heroin to the agent. The special employee, called at the suggestion of the judge, who was trying the case without a jury, admitted that he was a substantial dealer in narcotics; that he had been arrested for a federal narcotics violation some 19 months before the incident here at issue; that he had been released on nominal bail of $500 (in lieu of the $50,000 initially fixed) in consideration of agreeing to act as a “special employee”; and that he had worked as such on 29 cases with agents of the Bureau of Narcotics. However, he denied any dealings with Trimmings, who, he asserted, had asked him ti> help in locating customers — this leading to the introduction of Trimmings to the agent.

The spectacle of the United States failing to prosecute a criminal charge against a dealer in narcotics, so long as he engages in large scale pushing as a “special employee,” is one which *235 we find exceedingly unattractive. But whether the special employee induced Trimmings to make the instant sale, as Trimmings alleged, was an issue of fact, for determination by the trial judge. Since he was “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of entrapment does not stand up in this case” and the testimony was sufficient, if believed, to warrant that conclusion, existing rules of law render us powerless to interfere. Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859 (1958).

The Court expresses its appreciation to Joseph J. Ackell, Esq., who, as assigned counsel, argued Trimmings’ appeal with great sincerity and ability.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F.2d 234, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gunie-boyd-trimmings-ca2-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack