Albert v. First National Bank & Trust Co.

holding the evidence insufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy to distribute heroin, this court observed, "Surmise cannot be permitted in a criminal case" | holding the evidence insufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy to distribute heroin, this court observed, “Surmise cannot be permitted in a criminal case” | allowing use of retrospective determination of competency to plead guilty where court was able to hear testimony from expert witnesses and defense trial counsel, and review expert conclusions regarding defendant's competency | allowing use of retrospective determination of competency to plead guilty where court was able to hear testimony from expert witnesses and defense trial counsel, and review expert conclusions regarding defendant’s competency | "there are few subjects more potentially inflammatory than narcotics and thus such evidence should usually be excluded in a non-narcotics trial" | “there are few subjects more potentially inflammatory than narcotics and thus such evidence should usually be excluded in a non-narcotics trial” | “We are unpersuaded by the Government’s proffered distinction between ‘receiving’ and ‘possession’ .... ” | officers have right to conduct a quick and cursory check of a residence when they have reasonable grounds to believe that there are persons present who might present a security risk | “[W]e view the [subsections] as designed to protect the public from unnecessarily widespread dissemination of the contents of interceptions and from the wholesale use of information gleaned from a legal wiretap by an officer state or federal for personal or illegal purposes.” | no direct evidence of wife’s involvement in heroin transactions