United States v. Roland Sessum and Paul S. Markowitz

630 F.2d 457, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14153
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 12, 1980
Docket79-5235, 79-5326
StatusPublished

This text of 630 F.2d 457 (United States v. Roland Sessum and Paul S. Markowitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Roland Sessum and Paul S. Markowitz, 630 F.2d 457, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14153 (6th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-appellants in these cases were indicted, along with three others, and charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1976). Each was found guilty and sentenced; Sessum to five years and a three-year special parole term, and Markowitz to a Youth Corrections Act indeterminate sentence. The evidence presented at trial pertaining to a major conspiracy to distribute marijuana was much more than ample to support the jury verdict.

Appellants contend, however, that they were improperly denied motions for severance and that certain evidence admit *458 ted against them was improperly admitted. A review of the facts in this case shows that the District Judge committed no error in denying severance. All of these defendants were shown to be closely related in one criminal conspiracy. As to the evidentiary issues, we find no error in the admission of expert witness testimony pertaining to the identification of marijuana. The three witnesses who testified were amply qualified to make the chemical analysis by which they identified the substances seized as marijuana.

The last appellate issue pertains to the fact that the government was allowed to present both a video and an audio tape of the central conspirator, one Frank Cianciola, without calling Cianciola as a witness. The appellants conceded, as they had to, that the tapes were properly identified by law enforcement witnesses who testified at trial and were available for cross-examination. The government also made Cianciola available if the defense had desired to call him.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

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

Related

Prohibited acts A
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
630 F.2d 457, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roland-sessum-and-paul-s-markowitz-ca6-1980.