United States v. Savage

Second Circuit

United States v. Savage

292 F.2d 264

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1961

DocketNo. 413, Docket 26063

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 292 F.2d 264 (United States v. Savage) 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. Savage, 292 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Here the trial judge, sitting without a jury and acting on clear evidence that defendant had possession of heroin, used the statutory inference permitted from possession to find that the drug had been illegally imported into the United States and that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 174 had been violated. There have been too many cases sustaining this or a like inference as reasonable and rational for us now to hold it invalid. Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178, 184, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904; Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 418, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632; United States v. Moe Liss, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 144, 146; Velasquez v. United States, 10 Cir., 244 F.2d 416, 419; Cellino v. United States, 9 Cir., 276 F.2d 941, 943-946; Walker v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F.2d 52, 58-60.

We are indebted to assigned counsel and to the New York Legal Aid Society for ably protecting the rights of the accused.

Conviction affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Here the trial judge, sitting without a jury and acting on clear evidence that defendant had possession of heroin, used the statutory inference permitted from possession to find that the drug had been illegally imported into the United States and that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 174 had been violated. There have been too many cases sustaining this or a like inference as reasonable and rational for us now to hold it invalid. Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178, 184, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904; Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 418, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632; United States v. Moe Liss, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 144, 146; Velasquez v. United States, 10 Cir., 244 F.2d 416, 419; Cellino v. United States, 9 Cir., 276 F.2d 941, 943-946; Walker v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F.2d 52, 58-60.

We are indebted to assigned counsel and to the New York Legal Aid Society for ably protecting the rights of the accused.

Conviction affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 F.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-savage-ca2-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack