UNITED STATES V. MANDUJANO, 499 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1974) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. MANDUJANO

499 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1974)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Mandujano (D) appealed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for his conviction for attempted distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. 846.

FACTS: Officer Cavalier testified that, at the time the case arose, he was working in an undercover capacity and represented himself as a narcotics trafficker. Cavalier and a government informer went to the Tally-Ho Lounge, a bar located on Guadalupe Street in San Antonio. The informant introduced Cavalier to D. After some general conversation, D asked the informant if he was looking for 'stuff.' Cavalier said, 'Yes.' D then questioned Cavalier about his involvement in narcotics. Cavalier told D he was looking for an ounce sample of heroin to determine the quality of the material. D replied that he had good brown Mexican heroin for $650.00 an ounce, but that if Cavalier wanted any of it he would have to wait until later in the afternoon when the regular man made his deliveries. Cavalier said that he was from out of town and did not want to wait that long. D offered to locate another source, and made four telephone calls in an apparent effort to do so. D told Cavalier he wasn't having any luck contacting anybody. Cavalier stated that he could not wait any longer. D said he had a good contact, a man who kept narcotics around his home, but that if he went to see this man, he would need the money 'out front.' To reassure Cavalier that he would not simply abscond with the money, D stated, 'You are in my place of business. My wife is here. You can sit with my wife. I am not going to jeopardize her or my business for $650.00.' Cavalier counted out $650.00. D left the premises of the Tally-Ho Lounge at about 3:30 P.M. About an hour later, he returned and explained that he had been unable to locate his contact. He gave back the $650.00 and told Cavalier he could still wait until the regular man came around. Cavalier left, but arranged to call back at 6:00 P.M. When Cavalier called at 6:00 and again at 6:30, he was told that D was not available. No other contact was made.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner