United States v. Jasper Lee Simon

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jasper Lee Simon

488 F.2d 133, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6608

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1973

Docket73-2833

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 488 F.2d 133 (United States v. Jasper Lee Simon) 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. Jasper Lee Simon, 488 F.2d 133, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6608 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Simon was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) by distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana. His sole defense was entrapment, and to rebut it the government offered the testimony of three law enforcement officers to show his predisposition to deal in narcotics.

Each officer based his testimony on conversations with a confidential informant. One said an informer told him Simon had a reputation for dealing in drugs, and each of the other two testified an informer had said Simon was dealing in drugs. On appeal Simon claims this testimony was hearsay and a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. In this circuit, however, we have consistently held that “when entrapment is asserted as a defense, hearsay is admissible to show prior disposition to commit an offense charged in the indictment and that the government is not required to disclose the names of the informants.” United States v. Brooks, 5th Cir. 1973, 477 F.2d 453. Accord, Rocha v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 401 F.2d 529, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1103, 89 S.Ct. 905, 21 L.Ed.2d 796; Washington v. United States, 5th Cir. 1960, 275 F.2d 687. Therefore we affirm Simon’s conviction.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Simon was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) by distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana. His sole defense was entrapment, and to rebut it the government offered the testimony of three law enforcement officers to show his predisposition to deal in narcotics.

Each officer based his testimony on conversations with a confidential informant. One said an informer told him Simon had a reputation for dealing in drugs, and each of the other two testified an informer had said Simon was dealing in drugs. On appeal Simon claims this testimony was hearsay and a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. In this circuit, however, we have consistently held that “when entrapment is asserted as a defense, hearsay is admissible to show prior disposition to commit an offense charged in the indictment and that the government is not required to disclose the names of the informants.” United States v. Brooks, 5th Cir. 1973, 477 F.2d 453. Accord, Rocha v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 401 F.2d 529, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1103, 89 S.Ct. 905, 21 L.Ed.2d 796; Washington v. United States, 5th Cir. 1960, 275 F.2d 687. Therefore we affirm Simon’s conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 F.2d 133, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jasper-lee-simon-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack