United States v. Joseph Samuel Kinsey, United States of America v. Albert Kinsey

Bad Law
843 F.2d 383·25 Fed. R. Serv. 523·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 4062
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 1, 198887-1182, 87-1183California5,444 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tevrizian, J.

The District Court found appellants Joseph Samuel Kinsey and Albert Kinsey guilty of both conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Joseph and Albert Kinsey now raise numerous arguments on appeal. First, Joseph Kinsey contends that the District Court improperly admitted the expert opinion testimony of a narcotics officer regarding his, Joseph Kinsey’s, involvement in the distribution of the cocaine. Second, Albert Kinsey contends that the warrantless arrest of Joseph Kinsey was not justified by exigent circumstances. Third, Joseph and Albert Kinsey contend that the District Court improperly denied them their right to a jury trial on the validity of their alleged prior narcotics trafficking convictions. Fourth, Joseph and Albert Kinsey contend that the mandatory minimum penalty provisions of Title 21 U.S.C. Section 841 (b)(1)(A) are unconstitutional as applied to them. We disagree with the foregoing contentions and we conclude there are no grounds which warrant reversal of Joseph and Albert Kinsey’s convictions. Accordingly we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 28, 1986, at approximately 3:45 a.m., a Sacramento police officer stopped a vehicle…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.