Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/442/738/97377/
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 22:45:07
Document Index: 150016585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4704', '§ 174', '§ 174', '§ 4704', '§ 4701', '§ 4701', '§ 4251']

United States of America v. Barrington Williams, Appellant, 442 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1970) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1970 › United States of America v. Barrington Williams, Appellant
United States of America v. Barrington Williams, Appellant, 442 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 442 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1970) Argued November 9, 1970
First: The unlawful entry which the defendant committed in the presence of the officers justified a warrantless arrest under Title 4, Section 140 [3 ] of the District of Columbia Code.
Appellant also attacks the statutory presumptions of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 174 arising from his possession of the heroin but these presumptions were recently upheld with respect to heroin in Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S. Ct. 642, 24 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1970). The presumption of 21 U.S.C. § 174, that possession permits the inference that the defendant had knowledge the heroin was illegally imported, is especially attacked. The basis of the Supreme Court's holding in Turner as to this presumption was that "the overwhelming evidence is that the heroin consumed in the United States is illegally imported." 396 U.S. at 415, 90 S. Ct. at 652. The Court recognized, however, that
396 U.S. at 416 n. 28, 90 S. Ct. at 652. Counsel for appellant in this case has sought to utilize the loophole suggested by footnote 28. A Government chemist was placed on the stand to establish that the capsules in question did in fact contain heroin, and on cross-examination counsel elicited testimony to the effect that heroin could be manufactured in this country using opium or morphine illicitly obtained. However, the record falls far short of establishing hard evidence that "substantial clandestine operations" do in fact exist, and in the absence of such evidence the presumption retains validity.
Appellant makes the further contention with respect to count one (the 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) charge) that his conviction thereof violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment because to have obtained the tax stamps would have required him to incriminate himself. We disagree. Good v. United States, 410 F.2d 1217, 1220 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Gladden, 296 F. Supp. 983 (E. D.La.1969); Fields v. United States, 287 F. Supp. 606 (E.D. Va. 1968); see Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S. Ct. 284, 24 L. Ed. 2d 283 (1969). In support of his contention appellant contends that had he complied with the law he would have been required to purchase federal narcotic tax stamps and that this would have compelled him to incriminate himself. However, the nature of this charge of the indictment4 and the scheme of the statute upon which it is based5 do not support such assertion. For appellant to have acquired the necessary tax stamps under the applicable regulations he was required (1) to register and pay the occupational tax6 and (2) to be an "importer, manufacturer, producer or compounder" of the narcotic drugs for which the tax stamp is required.7 Since there is no evidence here that appellant was engaged in importing, manufacturing, producing or compounding heroin, his failure to obtain the tax stamp did not result from any risk of self-incrimination but rather from his inability to meet the statutory requirements for obtaining the stamp. Appellant was just ineligible under the statute to purchase the tax stamp so he was not required in any way to incriminate himself.8
26 U.S.C. § 4701 et seq.
See Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 94, 90 S. Ct. 284, 24 L. Ed. 2d 283 (1969). 26 U.S.C. § 4701 provides:
United States v. Gladden, 296 F. Supp. 983, 985-986 (E.D. La. 1969)
Sperling v. Willingham, 353 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 962, 86 S. Ct. 1591, 16 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1966); Stewart v. United States, 325 F.2d 745 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 937, 84 S. Ct. 1344, 12 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1964); Halprin v. United States, 295 F.2d 458, 460-461 (9th Cir. 1961);see also United States v. Ward, 387 F.2d 843 (7th Cir. 1967); Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 1960).
18 U.S.C. § 4251 et seq., Act of Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1442-1444.