Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson

United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley & Booker T. Nelson, 340 F.2d 989 (4th Cir. 1965)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-01-11
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. It is principally insisted upon appeal that the testimony of two undercover agents who testified for the prosecution should have been stricken, reliance being placed upon Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 441. In light, however, of the reputation of the defendants for engagement in the whisky business, known to the regular Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents, and the nature and extent of their supervision and control over the activities of the undercover agents, we think that the fact that the amount of their compensation was later to be determined by responsible officials on the basis of an appraisal of the extent and quality of the work of the undercover agents is not fatal to their competence as witnesses. This case differs from Williamson.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CRIM,340 F.2d 989(4th Cir. 1965)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Coolie John CRIM, Harold Boyd
Spradley and Booker T. Nelson, Appellants.
No. 9271.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued January 6, 1965.
Decided January 11, 1965.
Page 990
Phillip K. Wingard, Lexington, S.C., for appellants.

Terrell L. Glenn, U.S. Atty. (Marvin L. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief) for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Circuit Judge, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
It is principally insisted upon appeal that the testimony of two undercover agents who testified for the prosecution should have been stricken, reliance being placed upon Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir.,311 F.2d 441.

In light, however, of the reputation of the defendants for engagement in the whisky business, known to the regular Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents, and the nature and extent of their supervision and control over the activities of the undercover agents, we think that the fact that the amount of their compensation was later to be determined by responsible officials on the basis of an appraisal of the extent and quality of the work of the undercover agents is not fatal to their competence as witnesses.

This case differs from Williamson. It is more akin to Hill v. United States, 5 Cir.,328 F.2d 988.

Despite the interesting argument ably presented by counsel for the defendants, therefore, we conclude that there was no error in the District Court's refusal to strike the testimony of the undercover agents.

There were secondary contentions on appeal, which we find to be without merit.

Affirmed.Page 22