Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Clifton Patton Cosby, M.D.

500 F.2d 405

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1974-08-15
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

holding that an agent who was present at an audio taping and could testify to the accuracy of the resulting tapes could authenticate them

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Clifton Patton Cosby, M.D.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 20 opinions

UNITED STATES v. COSBY,500 F.2d 405(9th Cir. 1974)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CLIFTON PATTON COSBY, M.D.,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 74-1035.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 24, 1974.

Rehearing Denied August 15, 1974.

Page 406

Joseph Sack (argued), Fullerton, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Richard J. Henry, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARTZ,^fn*District Judge.

SCHWARTZ, District Judge:

[1] Appellant was charged in an eight-count indictment with possession and distribution of cocaine, in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and with using communication facilities to facilitate distribution in violation of21 U.S.C. § 843(b). The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all eight counts.

[2] Although appellant raises thirteen assignments of error, only three warrant discussion:

[3] 1. admissibility of tape-recorded telephone conversations between appellant and a government informant;

[4] 2. admissibility of evidence regarding prior purchases of cocaine; and

[5] 3. propriety of limitation on cross-examination of a government witness.

[6] Appellant contends that the taping of conversations between government informant Teply and himself was an unreasonable invasion of privacy, violative of his Fourth Amendment rights. Teply consented to the taping, thus eliminating any constitutional overtones. United States v. White,401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); United States v. King,472 F.2d 1(9th Cir. 1972). Transcripts of the tapes were also properly admitted. Fountain v. United States,384 F.2d 624(5th Cir. 1967); cert. denied390 U.S. 1005, 88 S. Ct. 1246, 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968). Further, a proper foundation was laid for the introduction of the tapes and transcripts at trial. Agent Ketchum testified that she was present at the taping, could identify the voices and made accurate transcripts.

[7] The second assignment of error involves the introduction of evidence showing purchases of cocaine by appellant prior to the sales alleged in the indictment. Appellant argues that such evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. The evidence was relevant to the issues of the case since it tended to show possession by appellant of quantities of cocainePage 407substantially in excess of his needs as a practicing physician.

[8] Finally, appellant claims that he should have been permitted to inquire into the specific address of the informant. However, Smith v. Illinois,390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968), does not establish a rigid rule of disclosure, but rather discusses disclosure against a background of factors weighing conversely, such as personal safety of the witness. In the instant case, the government met its burden by making an adequate representation that the informant's life had been threatened, causing him to relocate his family. United States v. Ellis,468 F.2d 638(9th Cir. 1972).

[9] The court finds no merit in any of appellant's other contentions and affirms the conviction on all counts.

[10] Affirmed.Page 420

Honorable Edward J. Schwartz, United States District Judge, Southern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩