United States v. Morris Garfield Williams, Jr.

435 F.2d 642 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Morris Garfield WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant. No. 24923. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 23, 1970. Norman R. Atkins (argued), of Atkins & Jacobson, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant. David F. Curnow (argued), Ass't U.S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before ELY, KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges. TRASK, Circuit Judge: 1 Morris Garfield Williams Jr. was found guilty, following a jury trial, on six counts of an indictment charging violations of federal narcotics laws arising out of two separate drug transactions. A motion for judgment of acquittal was granted as to the first three counts which concerned a transaction alleged to have occurred on February 9, 1968. Appellant now stands convicted on two counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 174 1 and one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a). 2 2 All three counts concern a transaction alleged to have occurred on February 20, 1968. 3 The court sentenced the appellant to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of 5 years on each of the three counts, IV, V and VI, the…

Morris Garfield Williams Jr. was found guilty, following a jury trial, on six counts of an indictment charging violations of federal narcotics laws arising out of two separate drug transactions. A motion for judgment of acquittal was granted as to the first three counts which concerned a transaction alleged to have occurred on February 9, 1968. Appellant now stands convicted on two counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 174 1 and one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a).

All three counts concern a transaction alleged to have occurred on February 20, 1968.

The court sentenced the appellant to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of 5 years on each of the three *644 counts, IV, V and VI, the sentences to be served concurrently.

This court’s jurisdiction to review the conviction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

We recount the essential facts which were presented to the court and jury. In doing so we view them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the government since the government was the prevailing party.

Proof of illegal importation of cocaine and knowledge of that illegal importation is an essential element of the crimes charged against Williams. He complains of…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. As I read the record, the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish an essential element of the offenses charged in counts IV and V, namely, that Williams knew that the cocaine had been illegally imported. Long ago, our court held that it could not be presumed, from one’s possession of cocaine, that he knew that such drug, widely manufactured in our country, had been illegally imported. Erwing v. United States, 323 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1963). In our opinion in that case, written by Judge Jertherg, we correctly anticipated the Supreme Court’s later opinion in Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 , 90 S.Ct. 642 , 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).

What do we have here? A person named Wong, with whom Williams was not charged to have engaged in a conspiracy, made a hearsay statement to someone, outside the presence of Williams, that the drug came “from Mexico.” That is all. On the basis of that hearsay statement, the majority holds that Williams himself knew that the drug had been illegally imported from Mexico. In being able to jump this far, my good Brothers have found, I submit, a super judicial, if not supernatural, degree of agility.

. My…