United States v. Hart

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hart

526 F.2d 344, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13225

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1976

DocketNo. 75-2685

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 526 F.2d 344 (United States v. Hart) 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

United States v. Hart, 526 F.2d 344, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13225 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted by a jury of distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Hart complains of alleged errors at the preliminary hearing conducted by a magistrate. Consistent with the spirit of F.R.Cr.P. 5.1 and under our decision in Harris v. U. S., 458 F.2d 670, cert. denied, sub nom., Scott et al. v. U. S., 409 U.S. 888, 93 S.Ct. 195, 34 L.Ed.2d 145 (1972), the magistrate was not required to permit Hart to elicit from the government witness, by cross-examination, the identity of the informer. Arguably Coleman et al., v. Burnett, 155 U.S.App.D.C., 477 F.2d 1187 (1973), is contrary, but it is not wholly consistent with F.R. Cr.P. 5.1(a), and we decline to follow it.

The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment was not violated by the magistrate’s refusal to require the DEA agent-witness to produce a written statement of the undercover agent. [345]*345Harris v. U. S., supra. Here, as in Harris, the appellant [Hart] confronted at trial the person whose statement was sought and had the opportunity to cross-examine him, and did so. The statement itself was clearly Jencks Act material.

Counsel for appellant Hammond has filed a motion asking that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel and also has filed an Anders v. California1 brief raising a single evidentiary question. The issue is without merit. We have independently examined the entire record and find no reversible error relating to Hammond. The motion of his counsel for leave to withdraw is granted.

The convictions are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted by a jury of distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Hart complains of alleged errors at the preliminary hearing conducted by a magistrate. Consistent with the spirit of F.R.Cr.P. 5.1 and under our decision in Harris v. U. S., 458 F.2d 670, cert. denied, sub nom., Scott et al. v. U. S., 409 U.S. 888, 93 S.Ct. 195, 34 L.Ed.2d 145 (1972), the magistrate was not required to permit Hart to elicit from the government witness, by cross-examination, the identity of the informer. Arguably Coleman et al., v. Burnett, 155 U.S.App.D.C., 477 F.2d 1187 (1973), is contrary, but it is not wholly consistent with F.R. Cr.P. 5.1(a), and we decline to follow it.

The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment was not violated by the magistrate’s refusal to require the DEA agent-witness to produce a written statement of the undercover agent. [345]*345Harris v. U. S., supra. Here, as in Harris, the appellant [Hart] confronted at trial the person whose statement was sought and had the opportunity to cross-examine him, and did so. The statement itself was clearly Jencks Act material.

Counsel for appellant Hammond has filed a motion asking that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel and also has filed an Anders v. California1 brief raising a single evidentiary question. The issue is without merit. We have independently examined the entire record and find no reversible error relating to Hammond. The motion of his counsel for leave to withdraw is granted.

The convictions are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 F.2d 344, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hart-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack