United States v. Michael Larry Schachel

Second Circuit

United States v. Michael Larry Schachel

276 F.2d 572, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4976

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1960

Docket25884_1

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F.2d 572 (United States v. Michael Larry Schachel) 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. Michael Larry Schachel, 276 F.2d 572, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4976 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Sehachel appeals from his conviction upon an indictment charging him with unlawful receipt, possession, concealment and facilitation of transportation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 173, 174. Schachel’s defense at trial was based upon the contention that he was entrapped by government agents into commission of the crime charged. The government submitted extensive, indeed almost overwhelming, evidence tending to show that the impetus to commission of the crime originated with the defendant. Sehachel testified to the contrary. The issue of entrapment was submitted to the jury, which found against defendant. Defendant urges on appeal that it was error to send the issue of entrapment to the jury, because the matter should be determined in all cases by the court as a question of law. The controlling Supreme Court authority is to the contrary. The problem first came before the Court in Sorrells v. United States, 1932, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, in which the majority held that the issue of entrapment is one of fact to be submitted by the jury when conflicting evidence is introduced. The question was reconsidered and Sorrells adhered to in Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848, and Masciale v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859.

We note with appreciation the able and zealous representation of the appellant by Ann Thacher Clarke as assigned counsel.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Sehachel appeals from his conviction upon an indictment charging him with unlawful receipt, possession, concealment and facilitation of transportation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 173, 174. Schachel’s defense at trial was based upon the contention that he was entrapped by government agents into commission of the crime charged. The government submitted extensive, indeed almost overwhelming, evidence tending to show that the impetus to commission of the crime originated with the defendant. Sehachel testified to the contrary. The issue of entrapment was submitted to the jury, which found against defendant. Defendant urges on appeal that it was error to send the issue of entrapment to the jury, because the matter should be determined in all cases by the court as a question of law. The controlling Supreme Court authority is to the contrary. The problem first came before the Court in Sorrells v. United States, 1932, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, in which the majority held that the issue of entrapment is one of fact to be submitted by the jury when conflicting evidence is introduced. The question was reconsidered and Sorrells adhered to in Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848, and Masciale v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 827, 2 L.Ed.2d 859.

We note with appreciation the able and zealous representation of the appellant by Ann Thacher Clarke as assigned counsel.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.2d 572, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-larry-schachel-ca2-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack