UNITED STATES V. POOL
660 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1981)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Pool (Ds) sought review of their convictions of conspiracy to import
marijuana under 21 U.S.C.S. 963, and some were also convicted of conspiring to possess
marijuana with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C.S. 846 and of using a telephone to
facilitate commission of a Title 21 violation under 21 U.S.C.S. 843(b).
FACTS: A DEA agent, Starratt, got a call from a person who identified himself as Chip.
The caller told the agent that Petrulla wanted DEA agent Story to obtain another boat. Based
on this conversation, Starratt identified Loye (D) as the telephone participant. The
conversation was not recorded. Starratt never met Chip and never made any voice comparison
with Loye. The only way Starratt could identify the caller was through the caller's
self-identification. D objected to the introduction of this evidence at trial as
inadmissible because it was not authenticated. D appealed.
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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment