Document: 356 U.S. 386 78 S.Ct. 827 2 L.Ed.2d 859 Frank MASCIALE, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 84. Argued Jan. 16, 1958. Decided May 19, Rehearing Denied June 23, See 357 933, 1367. Mr. Merrell E. Clark, Jr., New York City, for the petitioner. James W. Knapp, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents same issue as Sherman v. United States, 369, 819: Should petitioner's conviction be set aside on ground that a matter law defense entrapment was established? Cf. Sorrells 287 435, 53 210, 77 L.Ed. 413. Petitioner convicted three counts, two which charged him with illegal sale narcotics and one conspiracy to make sale.1 The went jury,2 followed. Court Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. 236 F.2d 601. We granted certiorari. 352 1000, 568, 545. evidence discloses following events. On January 14, 1954, petitioner introduced government agent Marshall by informer, Kowel. Although had known kowel approximately four years, he unaware Kowel's undercover activities. big buyer. Both testified concerning ensuing conversation. immediately made it clear wanted talk about buying large quantities high-grade if were not interested, conversation would end at once. Instead leaving, questioned his knowledge traffic then boasted while primarily gambler, 'he knew someone whom considered high up in introduce me (Marshall) I able get can quote this—'88 per cent pure heroin' from this source.' also stated gave telephone number where could reached. In testimony admitted gambler told through gambling contacts traffic. He denied any available source or said obtain time. explained met marshall only help Kowel impress Marshall. who number. It is noteworthy nowhere did state during either tried persuade enter six weeks just related spoke each other least ten times; kept telling trying contact but having trouble doing so. Finally, March 1, Seifert, sold some heroin next day. even loaned sister's car Seifert order narcotics. convicted. 3 have occurred ways. Either induced petitioner, did. As Marshall, has conceded here jury found when ready willing search out bring sale.3 Kowel, informer engaged campaign sell using lure easy income. argues undisputed testimony4 why deal so established law. However, alone noth effect. While presented enough consider, they entitled disbelieve regard find Government guilt. Therefore, trial court properly submitted jury.5 4 judgment 5 Affirmed. 6 FRANKFURTER, DOUGLAS, HARLAN, BRENNAN join, dissenting. 7 case, according view expressed my concurring 378, 823, should itself ruled left determination jury. mere reading cold record sustaining such claim seems rather thin. But judge heard saw witnesses might give different weight than printed reveals. Accordingly, remand District judge. If conclude, allowed sustained, stand. reached result, indictment shoule dismissed. seems, law, better disposition decide no harm done leaving question because there entrapment. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2553(a), 2554(a), U.S.C.A. 2554(a); 21 § 174, 18 2, 2. charge here. Well concede this, despite version meeting explanation being there, believed inferred narration needed persuasion seek conclude argument neither party attempted subpoena For reasons 819, we decline consider contention reversed remanded never raised parties. jury, put Appeals.

Category: 0