Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> Appellate Law and Practice
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Appellate Law
: Appellate Law and PracticeCA1: a drug conviction with all the normal trimmings
By S. COTUS
US v. Page, Nos. 06-2006, 06-2007 affirms a conviction for ? possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and conspiracy, id. § 846.? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seems to have been running a rather large and complicated sting operation. Anyway, getting to the objections.
There was cop ?expert? testimony about the m.o. of drug dealers. The First says it really isn?t expert testimony but rather lay-witness testimony and not subject to normal disclosure to the defense. The First seems more eager to bend on this issue then to explain why a copy testifying about the methods of criminals is not offering ?expert? testimony.
Don't go away. There is more below the fold.
The cop also used a bunch of lingo about how he did not know ?at [that] time? what the defendants were doing. On plain error review, the First says that this isn?t too much of a problem because the government never argued to the jury that they learned more.
The defendant claims that a phone conversation (on a tape) is hearsay. The government claims it is context. The government wins. I wonder what isn?t ?context.?
A prosecutorial misconduct argument regarding closing statements is rejected even though the government concedes that the prosecutor shouldn?t have implied that a party?s brother?s ?possession and sale of a gun had rendered him subject to prosecution under federal law, since the jury may have inferred that the prosecutor based this assertion on facts which were not introduced in evidence? The defendant didn?t contemporaneously object, so the First review it on plain error and says that there isn?t that much of a problem.
Sufficiency challenges fail. The defendant says that the government didn?t explain away various possible scenarios as to why a defendant was in a car carrying drugs.
The challenge to a denial of a motion to server fails as it wasn?t raised below.
Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 28, 2008 (boomark / email).
Mitchell Report Summary
Report on Steroid Drug Use in Major League Baseball by Senator George Mitchell
Drug Manufacturer Rebates
Caremark Corp. agrees to pay $38.5 million settlement after convincing doctors to switch drug brands.
FDA Issues Warning Regarding Topical Ibuprofen Drug Products
Topical Ibuprofen Drug Products FDA Issues Warning Letters
Digitek Recalled
the heart drug allegedly contains double the medication that it should
VA Medical Centers
Admit to Drug Overdoses, Software Glitches
Transdermal Drug Patches
Risk of Burns Missing From Some Labeling
Cardiac Arrhythmia Drug Recalled
Recall Affects 1 lot of 225 mg Propafenone Tablets

JSM Recalls Ground Beef: How Much Isn't Known
JSM recalls ground beef products due to risk of foodborne illness from E. coli
Divided Panel Upholds Drug Conviction Enhancement in Reentry Case
S.C. Supreme Court Overturns Mother's Homicide Conviction for Drug Use During Pregnancy
Enhanced sentence must be based on prior predicate offense
Tennessee School Zone Drug Laws








