United States v. Janice Weston, A/K/A Janice Wallace

Weston, also known as Wallace, appeals from her conviction by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C. § 174 , receiving, concealing and facilitating the transportation of 537.11 grams of heroin, knowing that it had been imported contrary to law. She presents two questions, which we discuss separately.

1. Sufficiency of the evidence.

Weston argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that she knowingly possessed the heroin. On this aspect of the matter, the government’s case rests on the testimony of narcotics agent Wilson, which is as follows: On June 9, 1970, he and agent Higdon were in a car in the Kent, Washington area, looking for Weston. At about 10:30 A.M. he saw her in a Volkswagen sedan, in which she was a passenger. The driver was Brenda Jackson. Wilson made a radio call to other agents, and then he and Higdon followed the Volkswagen. At one point, Weston turned around and looked for a time at the agents’ car. It was unmarked, and the agents were dressed in casual clothes. On a residential street, two vehicles carrying other agents pulled out onto the street ahead of the Volkswagen, partially blocking the street. These vehicles were also unmarked, and the agents in them were…

(concurring and dissenting).

I concur in that portion of the opinion holding that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. I dissent from that portion of the decision involving sentencing and the remand for further proceedings.

The majority attempts an end run around Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), permitting a trial judge to consider hearsay information on sentencing, and the cases holding that sentences within statutory limits, will not be reviewed on appeal. The majority disclaims a repudiation of the rule of these cases, but in substance opens up Pandora’s box on procedures in the trial court in the use of a presentence report.

The majoriy remands the case for re-sentencing. I do not understand the majority opinion as prohibiting a new pre-sentence report developing the information in the areas described as (a), (b) and (c) set forth near the end of the majority opinion.

The trial court gave appellant’s retained counsel an opportunity to make an investigation and report the results thereof to the court. The areas listed in the opinion were fertile fields for investigation by the defense, but counsel refused to…

448 F.2d 626 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janice WESTON, a/k/a Janice Wallace, Defendant-Appellant. No. 26850. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 3, 1971. Michael Garvey (argued), of Houger, Garvey & Schubert, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant. Charles Pinnell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. Before DUNIWAY and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, District Judge * . DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 Weston, also known as Wallace, appeals from her conviction by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C. Sec. 174 , receiving, concealing and facilitating the transportation of 537.11 grams of heroin, knowing that it had been imported contrary to law. She presents two questions, which we discuss separately. 2 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. 3 Weston argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that she knowingly possessed the heroin. On this aspect of the matter, the government's case rests on the testimony of narcotics agent Wilson, which is as follows: On June 9, 1970, he and agent Higdon were in a car in the Kent, Washington area, looking for Weston. At about 10:30 A.M. he saw her in a…