# Appendix — Aiken v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1027%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 389 U.S. 1043 ## Text ‘ * Onis of Ci sh Conti i’ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, Foa So Cmourr, Vo. 461— September Term, 1966. 1 (Argued May 31, 1967 , Decided August 8, 1967. ) igi “Docket No. 31053 1 vv Unrrep Staves or AMERICA, : i : . 5 Appellee, ‘ne | N a Noe, MAxwRIL, WLAAx Apams, Jonw Henny Purry, a CLaxxx c Waite and Lzonarp R. Am EN, we ugh Appellants. > +> Before: oe 4 Waremaax, Stur and Kavraay, a Cirowit Judges + \ „ ˖ ²˙ eee United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles H. Tenney, Judge, convicting Noel Maxwell, John Henry Purry, Clarence White, William Adams and Leonard R. Aiken of conspiracy to violate 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, and in the cases of Maxwell, Purry and White, of substantive violations of those sections. Affirmed. 4 14 4 Opinion of Circuit, Court . a * C. Barcuernen, In., New York, N. T. (An- * thony F. Marra and James J. Sentner, Jr., New York, N. V., on the brief), for appel- lants Maxwell, Adams, Purry and White. 7 James J. Haxnakax, New 1 8 N. V. for ap- ets oe ) Danni. R. Murpock, Asst. U. S. anaes | Southern District of New York (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Attorney, Robert C. Mor- villo, Michael W. Mitchell and Paul B. Gal- vani, Asst. U. S. Attorneys, on the brief )s hee . +. Surrn, Circwit Judge: Noel Maxwell, John Henry Pr „Clarence White, Wil- bam Adams and Leonard R. Aiken appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after a jury trial before Judge Charles H. Tenney. All five appellants were convicted of conspiring to violate 21 U.S. C. §§ 173, 174; Maxwell, Purry and White were also found guilty of sub- stantive violations of those sections. Adams was sentenced to five years imprisonment; Maxwell, Purry and White re- ceived concurrent sentences of six, seven and eight years, respectively; Aiken was fined $15,000 and sentenced to a term of thirteen years imprisonment to run concurrently with an existing twenty-five year sentence. See, United States v. Aiken, 373 F. 2d 294, 296 (2d Cir. 1967). We have examined the joint and several points raised by ap- pellants, find them to be unpersuasive and, therefore, affirm the convictions. — — —— Ee — | = : ‘ tb Opinion of Circuit Court.” - | “Appellants assert that the evidence of guilt on the col 2 5 spiracy count was insufficient in that the government did not bear its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that an overall conspiracy existed; (2) that each ap- pellant was a member of the conspiracy; (3) that each knew all of his alleged co-conspirators, and (4) that each was aware that the cocaine had been illegally imported. This point fails in all respécts. | 48 K Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the 3 government, as we must, United States v. Fiorillo, 376 F. : 2d 180 (2d Cir. 1967), the jury could have found that dur- ing the years 1956, 1957 and 1958 three seamen, Jesse Col. _ oön, Winston Massiah and Mitchell Anfield, purchased large Auantities of cocaine from one Rene Hausaff in Valparaiso; Chile. They then transported the cocaine on their ships to New York City where it was carried ashore by longshore- men and subsequently sold to Aiken, to a duo composed of Maxwell and Adams, to a trio formed by Purry, White and one Nick Holiday or to others. | i lea deal The evidence which inculpated appellants on the con- * spiracy and substantive counts may be condensed as fol- lows. On June 18, 1956, Colson brought in some cocaine and met a colleague named Granville Smith who took Col- . son to Purry’s apartment where he. introduced him to Purry. Purry, in turn, introduced Colson.to White and Holiday. The men conversed and White, Purry and ‘Holi- day agreed to cut and distribute cocaine to. be imported by Colson and Smith. The three agreed further to furnish _“ Colson with money before his ship sailed. Colson landed again on July 31, 1956 and complained to Smith and Purry | about not having received the promised funds but later delivered a quantity of cocaine to Smith in Purry’s pres- ‘ence. Colson subsequently took back half of the cocaine Opinion of Circuit Court. because of non-payment, sold it to Maxwell for $12,000 but, 1 Massiah’s request and in the presence of Adams, paid back $300 because the weight was short. Thereupon, Max- well, pleased with Colson’s way of doing business, asked to be notified of the next shipment. In August of 1956, Colson and Anfield met with Purry, White and Holiday; Purry suggested that they not deal with Smith any more because he had defalcated with their funds, Colson agreed and: Parry asked to be informed of the next shipment. Later in August, Purry, White and Holiday agreed to purchase $600 worth of cocaine through Massiah but failed to deliver. the cash before Massiah’s ship sailed. When Massiah returned in early October, he sold cocaine to Max- well and Adams. Massiah subsequently stated that he had been robbed and Maxwell, Adams, White and Purry, among others, unsuccessfully attempted to recover the supposedly stolen cocaine. On October 30 Colson and ‘Anfield sailed carrying with them $600 from Purry, White and Holiday. Upon the ship's return on December 10, Colson delivered cocaine to the trio and sold Maxwell and Adams $16,000 to $18,000 worth of cocaine. Early in 1957 and later in June of that year sales of more cocaine to Purry, White and Holiday and to Maxwell and Adams oceurred and were financed in the same way with the trio paying in advance and the duo paying on receipt. In July of 1957 Maxwell and Adams made a $2,500 purchase and a similar sale oc- curred later that summer. At that time Colson gave Purry, White and Holiday cocaine on consignment but when pay- ment, was not forthcoming, Colson retrieved the cocaine. Toward the end of 1957, Colson informed Aiken that he received shipments of cocaine and Aiken told Colson to have one Schoolboy Ellis contact him when a shipment 93 2 arrived. Colson subsequently sold Aiken $2,500 worth of | ede ene , Opinion of Circuit Court. cocaine. Later on, in the fall of 1958, Aiken purchased a. quantity of cocaine for $12,500 and, at the same time Col- son made further sales to Maxwell and Adams. That same year, Colson made a sale to Aiken at a reduced price be- cause a prior delivery had been defective.. Further proof ol at least two more sales to Aiken was adduced. Ass the above-described’ evidence demonstrates, appel- lants’ attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is unavailing. The jury was clearly entitled to find a single conspiracy with Colson, Massiah and Anfield supplying cocaine from the same source in Chile for sale and distribution by ap- pellants in New York City. Moreover, as detailed above, the government submitted adequate proof of Purry and White 's substantive violations on June 18, 1956 and Max- well’s similar offense on July 31, 1956. The government a- Proof, furthermore, showed numerous sales to each appel- lant and thus secured each man to the conspiracy. Compare . United States v. Stromberg, 268 F. 2d 256, 267 (2d Cir.), bert. denied 361 U. S. 863 (1959). Thirdly, it is irrelevant that each appellant did not know all of his alleged co-con- spirators. United States v. Edwards, 366 F. 2d 853, 867 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied sub nom. Parness v. United . States, 386 U. S. 919 (1967). Lastly, regardless of the evi- dence of actual knowledge by appellants that the cocaine came from Chile, possession of cocaine coupled with the permissible inference of §§ 173, 174 is adequate evidence of knowing illegal importation. United States v. Tucker (2d Cir. June 28, 1967). , 1 ded Maxwell, Purry, White and Adams contend principally that they were denied their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Appellants were indicted with seven others o * ha ‘ ee Smith, Nick Holiday, 105 Thora and Sylvie Ferris. Aiken was 48 oOpenion of Cirowit Court. a on March 3, 1961. The five appellants, along with three of their. oo-indictees (Massiah, Anfield and Thorn) were forth- with brought to trial on June 13, 1961 before Judge J. Skelly Wright, sitting by designation, and a jury. The next day, however, Judge Wright declared a mistrial. and on June 15 granted the government’s motion to ‘sever Max- "well; Purry, White and Adams. Trial commenced as to Aiken, Massiah, Anfield and Thorn, and on June 29 a jury found all four defendants guilty. We reversed the convic- tions of Aiken, Anfield and Thorn in United States v. Mas- siah, 307 F. 2d 62 (2d Cir. 1962), and. the Supreme Court - reversed Massiah’s conviction in the noted decision, Mas- siah v. United States. 377 U. S. 201 (1964). Almost five years, after Judge Wright. declared the mistrial, Maxwell, Purry and Adams moved on June 3, 1966 to dismiss the indictment for want of prosecution. Judge William B. Her- lands denied their motion on June 20 and appellants were subsequently brought to trial before J udge Tenney and a jury on October 17, 1966. — Maxwell, Purry, White and Adams lack standing to claim that the longer than five year delay between mistrial and retrial deprived them of a speedy trial. Since none of these . appellants ever demanded a speedy trial, each has waived Sixth Amendment right. United States v. Lustman, 258 F. 2d 475-(2d Cir.), cert. denied 358 U. S. 880 (1958). E were,we to treat the June 3, 1966 motion to dismiss e by Maxwell, Purry and Adams as a dag de aal trial, which we do not, it would not avail these appellant: ‘because they were speedily tried thereafter... - 2 indicted as “John Doe, a/k/a ‘Leon,’ meaning thereby to describe a Negro male, of medium complexion, with black hair and a medium duild, approximately 40 yee old, approximately 5’ 9” tall and weighing approximately 165 bs.“ p Loe = 4 79 Opinion of Ci it Court. - | “Aware that their claims are barred under Lustman, ap- pellants invite us to abandon the so-called demand rule which we have consistently applied in a constantly lengthen- ing line of cases.* We decline the invitation, however, be- cause the reasoning of Lustman, that the demand rule is consonant with the bulk of federal authority and preserves the speedy trial right as a shield for the defendant’s pro- ' tection but not as a sword for his escape, is still to us per- Maxwell and Aiken next claim that the admission of the government’s exhibit 87, which was a typewritten transcript of an incriminating conversation between Maxwell and of the Fifth Amendment. The background of exhibit 87 is as follows. On March 5, 1960, Customs Agent Finbarr Murphy installed a minifon recorder in the glove compart- ment of Colson’s automobile; Colson then picked up Max- - lebe v. United States 2d Cir. April 21, 1960); United States v. Moore, 373 F. 2d S47 (2d Cir. 1 Y; Uni States v. 7 7 [ 7) 2 8 — 7) 3 3 A . oe d. 1 : 2 0 a 50 4 9 Opinion of C Court, N On November 30, 1960, while Mete b the re-recording „through earphones, Murphy dictated approximately ten minutes of the forty-five minute conversation to a short- hand stenographer whose notes were typed. Murphy then compared the transcript. with the re-recording and was. satisfied that the transcription wai accurate. The portions deleted were either irrelevant, inaudible or repetitive. In - July 1961, under the impression that there would not be a re- trial, Murphy put the minifon wire and the re- record- ing back into circulation where; in the normal course of affairs, the conversations were erased when the wire and tape were re-used. os At the voir dire, Maxwell, objected to the admission ot the transcript because the recording was made in violation of his right to counsel. He does not. press this point on . appeal. In any event, it is meritless. See, United States er rel. Molinas v. Mancusi, 370 F. 2d 601 (2d Cir.), cert. : denied 386 U, S. 984 (1967), and cases cited therein. What Maxwell does argue is that the accuracy of the transcript cannot be ascertained and that whether the transcript honestly reflects the tenor of the whole conversation cannot be determined. The deletion of the inaudible, irrelevant and repetitive portions of a tape, however, does not render it inadmissible. United States v. Knohl (2d Cir. June 22, 8 at 202. The accuracy of the transcript presents a best évidence. | question. We recently said in Knohl, ‘‘as far as the best evidence rule is concerned, a well recognized exception is that secondary evidence may be admitted in lieu of. the original provided the original has not been lost, destroyed or become unavailable through the fault of the proponent. and provided the copy does not otherwise appear to be un- trustworthy. Here, although the transcript was typed re ae ee 51 "Opinion of Circuit Court. — sind was this’ suscéptible to ee represented the re-recording which itself i is not — . Hence, Judge Tenney: was warranted: in finding that un- trustworthiness had not been ‘shown and the question re. : mains of whether “the original has. been lost; destroyed or become unavailable through the fault of the proponent.’’ . The tapes were erased by the government; nevertheless, secondary evidence is admissible unless the loss, destrue- tion or unavailability was purposefully caused by the pro- ponent in order to prevent the production of thé primary evidence.“ Here, Murphy stated that he returned the tapes to circulation where they were erased because he did not ~,. * Courts, e commentators and codifiers have expressed “this rubric in various ways. E. g., Sylvania’ Elec. Prods. Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F. ny 38 755 1008 (1st ‘Giz. 1965) ; United S v. Alexander, 326 F 24 736 739 (4th Cir. 1964) ; McCormick, Evidence § 196 (1954) (seri ault af the proponent) ; Tallo v. United States, 344 F. 2d 467, 470 2 1965) (w rongful disposition); ‘Chandler v. United States, 318 F 2d ot 10th Cir. 1963) (fraudulent in- volved in th ; Toho Dussan Kaisha, L. v. American | eee ae 45 255 P F. 1418, 423 (2d Cir. 1959) (connivance of | (esd. States v. 3 237 F. 2d 466, 475 (2d Gr. 21856) ( United Stas 224 F. 2d ‘910, 5912 (Sth Gr. eth Cr. 1880 (without (without any nee eee fraudulent purpose or any intent to create an excuse for its non- ; roduction) ; Reynolds v. Denvee & Rio Greade W éstern R.R., 174 - . 2d 673, 675 1 5 Cir. 1949) (fraud or bad faith with to the destruction); Fell mayer acking Co. v. Commissioner, a F. 24 707, 710 25 Ce 1944) (no reasonabie that it has been desig withheld or 1 ‘ick, Evidence its use as evidence; rut 16 tne station of the tril , an intrecene of fraul); 4 Wigmore, Evidence idence §1198 at 345 Se 1 dicion of fra 5 odel Code of Evidence, in 5 (eb ence — 2 "Opinion of Circuit Court. think that a re- trial would ovcur in whieh they would be used. Thus although we regret the government’s conduct in not supervising their handling more carefully and allow- | ing the tapes to be erased while charges against Maxwell were outstanding, it was within Judge Tenney’s discretion to admit exhibit 87. Even if the admission of the exhibit were erroneous, which it is not, Maxwell would not be entitled to relief for two reasons upon which we need not rely. First, he re- . @eived a concurrent/sentence for the conspiracy count on which the tapes were admittde. See, United States v. Lawn, 355 U. S. 339, 359, 362 (1958); United States v. Costello (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Gonzales (2d Cir. June 22, 1967) (mandatory minimum sentences). See also, United States v. Youngblood (2d Cir. June 21, 1967). Secondly, . Colson testified at trial as to the substance of the taped conversation. See, Monroe v. United States, 234 F. 2d 49, 55 (D. C. Cir.), eert. denied 352 U. S. 873 (1956). Cf. United States v. White, 223 F. 2d 674 (2d Cir. 1955). Finally, tge transeript did not refer to Aiken and was admitted only against Maxwell; hence, Aiken's elaim is frivolous. Aiken further argues that certain in- eustody statements which he made to Agent Murphy after he had been arrested and informed of his rights were admitted in violation of tm rules laid down in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964) and Escobedo y. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964). At trial, Agent Murphy gave the following account of the conversation, which Aiken does not challenge: | 277 pulled up in front of the House of Detention and ( A I said What do you want!“ 5 39 * oe Opinion of Cirouit Court. 3 | Oy f 2 He- said, ‘If you get re di stuff rem want to get rid of, call me.“ W * Laaid, What!“ N He said, If you get any stuff you wait ra get rid of, eall me, you can trust me.’ Is aid to Aiken, ‘Trust yout Lace seen you before And he repeated, ‘You can trast me.’ So I said, ‘Do you have any references?’ He says, ‘I have no references. I don’t do business that way. Either you do it with me or you don’t.’ At that point I told him to get out en the conversa- tion was terminated.” : Since Agent Murphy 8 . testiniony reveals that Aiken freely volunteered the remarks, neither Massiah nor ‘Escobedo has been violated. United States v. Accardt, 342 F. 2d 697, 701 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 382 U. S. 954 (1965). Cf. United States v. Garcia (2d Cir. May 22, 1967). Aiken complains that he was denied trial by an impartial ö jury because a juror communicated to the ecurt some den- igrating matter about one of appellant's trial lawyers. After determining in the absence of appellant and counsel that the juror had not discussed the matter with the rest of the the panel, Judge Tenney excused the juror and replaced him with an alternate. In following this procedure and in replacing the juror with an alternate, Judge Tenney acted woll within his powers and, absent a showing by appellant, we will not presume prejudice in such matters. United States v. Ellenbogen, 365 F. 2d 982, 989 (2d Cir. 1966), nr. 8. 923 (1967); Damen Houli- (1964); United States v. Woodner, 317 F. 2d 649, 652 2 Cir. 1963). Opinion of Circuit Court. Aiken goes on to e two complaints about J 3 Ten- ney'is charge. These points are improperly presented for appellate review Aiken failed to assert a timely ‘exception below, United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F. 2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied 383 U. S. 907 (1966), and, any- „wap, are trivial. Aiken complains that The Court in its : charge did not spell out for the Jury that were the Jury to find that there were separate independent conspiracies with separate and distinct groups involved and that some of the defendants belonged to one conspiracy and not to the other and that other defendants belong to another con- spiracy, then a verdict of not guilty must be.returned to all the defendants in the conspiracy. count.“ In fact, the 5 Court correctly chy ged that Proof of several separate and. independent conspiracies involving various of the de- fendants, although to violate the same narcotic laws, is not proof of the ‘single conspiracy charged in the indictment. ” United States v. Aiken, supra, Aiken’s second point i is that the charge did not adequately explain the permissive: in- ference of §§ 173 and 174. Although the court might have stated more specifically that the inference is only permis- — — sive, failure to do so is not plain error noticeable under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (b), especially when knowing import - tion is not in issue. United States v. Morton (2d Cir. ; May 8, 1967). ) Aiken ’s next-to-last point is that i in identifying a photo- graph of Aiken, Agent Murphy read off an inscription on the rear which referred to Aiken as a federal fugitive. Althou eference was unfortunate, it is ‘unimagi- —— 1110 that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, it could have in any way prejudiced Aiken. Cf. United States v. Gillette (2d Cir. ) (fingerprint cards). In any event, Aiken did not request the court to — ‘thé j jury e the N > 11 eee Cae 8 “Opinion of Cireuit Court. * . The nal vet bell y Amen whic werte e prosecùtorial misconduct in regard to the Assistant United ft States Attorney’s opening and closing remarks, is likewise without merit. The prosecutor’s prediction in his opening Statement that the government would show shootings, cheatings and ‘robberies was substantiated at trial, ef. United States v. Moran, 194 F. 2d 623 (2d Cir.), cert. de- nied 343 U. S. 965 (1952), and his summation coolly detailed ing lack of the restraint which more competent prosecu- tors are careful to display. United States v. Murphy, 374 the evidence and cannot even be described as demonstrat- F. 2d 651, 653 (2d Cir. 1967). Compare, denn States v. - Bugros, 304 F. 2d 177 (2d Cir. 1962). Aiken makes other arguments but they are too eden to warant discussion. | , | ace Judgment affirmed. =~ e eo eee Petition for Rehearing: "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, Szconp Cmourr. At a Stated Term of the United States Court of A 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the United States in the oH of New York, on e twentieth | | . present: Hon. Sremry R. Waterman, \ Hon. J. Josxrn Smita, \ How. Invinc R. KavrMan, \ Circuit een + | : . Uns Srarzs oF Ai 3 | r | v. ee 1 a | Waxstox ees, ET r u. 5 Gi 1 92 555 Defendants, \ ‘ 2 Non. WIII AI 1 JOHN Sistas Pumr, : on Wurre and Lronarp Royan ARE, ig * * _Defendants- Appellants, | . +> A petit. n ter rehearing: 88 with a motion in the : ee to stay the issuance of the mandate and con- : tinue bail pending a petition for a writ of certiorari to the oe fa go ourt of the United States having been filed 2 57 a imdictment. | * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Soprm Dornier or New York ‘ > ca GE Oe St, 8 1 eee Unrrep Staves or America, 1110 4 Wirsrox Massian, Jesse Corson, MrrcHen AnrFigtp, Gran- nnn Suara, Norn Maxwei, Witiiam Apams, Jonn g Henry Punnr, CLann N WRArrR, Nick Holbar, Ioxr Tuorn, SrLvra Feats, Jonw’ Dor, a/k/a ‘‘Lron’’ mean- ing thereby to describe a Negro male of medium com-. plexion, with black hair and a medium build, approx. 40 yrs. old, approx. 5’ 9” tall, and weighing approx. 165 Ibs’ | , RS 7 Defendauts. The Grand Jury charges: a RS. HOS On or about the 6th day of ay , 1958, in the Southern * oil District of New York, Winston Massiah, Jesse Colson and Mitchell Anfield, the defendants, did unlawfully, wilfully . and knowingly bring on board, and have in their possession | and control on board a vessel of the United States, to wit, the S. S. Santa Maria, while engaged on a foreign voyage, a nareotie drug, to wit, approximately 3 pounds, 8 ounces and 256 grains of cocaine, not constituting a part of the cargo entered in the manifest or part of the ship’s stores. title 21, United States Code, Section 1843 and «Title 18, United States Code, Section 25. . * ‘ 58. N NI Sxcoxp Cova r The grand y further charges: . 5 On or äbout the 6th day of May, 1958, i in- the Southern g District of New York, Winston Massiah, Jesse Colson and ee ee Mitchell Anfield, the defendants, unlawfully, wilfully and _ knowingly did receive, conceal, sell and facilitate the trans- portation, concealment and sale of a narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 3 pounds, 8 ounces and 256 grains of cocaine, after the said narcotic drug had been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, knowing that the said narcotic drug had theretofore been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law in that the importation and bringing of any narcotic drug into the _ United States, except such amounts of crude opium and coca leaves as the Commissioner of Nareoties finds to | se necessary to provide for medical and legitimate uses only, is prohibited. (Title 21, Sections 173 and 1174, United States Code). es a 18, Section 2, United States: Code). if Tam Count o The Grand Jury further a On or about the 18th day of June, 1956, in the Sosthern | District of New York, Granville Smith, the defendant, un- ~ lawfully, wilfully and knowingly did receive, conceal, sell 55 and facilitate the transportation, concealment and sale of a “narcotic drag, to wit, approximately 50 grams of cocaine, after the said narcotic drug had been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, Knowing that the said narcotic drug had theretofore been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law in that the a oe and N of any nareotie drug into the a — * = — ‘a — . z = AES ENE OPIN ION, eee e e 50 United States, except such amounts of ernde opium and coca leaves as the Commissioner of Narcotics finds to be necessary to provide for medical and legitimate uses only, ; is prohibited. PS ab. phasing |: tates, feeding) Bia. - (Title 21, Sections 173 and 174, United States Code). nig HA 7 Fourra Count. The Grand Jury further charges: 5 18 ag n or about the 18th day of. June, 1956, in the Southern District of New York, 114àͤ4k„„ Joun HRxnT Punzr, (Cuarence Ware om Teceive, conceal, sell and facilitate the transportation, con- cealment and sale of a narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 50 grams of cocaine, after the said narcotic drug had been finds to be necessary to provide for medical and legitimate uses only, is prohibite e. at i title 21, Sections 173 and 174, United States Code). ie eee et ‘The Grand Jury further charges: 11 ae et Bean On or about the 31st day of July, 1956, in the Southern District of New-York, Granville Smith, the defendant, un- lawfully, wilfully and knowingly did receive, conceal, sel! OS EA SPAN tet * rler, SI LY eran ere ger * oe hes 5 60 Indictment. and facilitate the transportation, concealment. and sale of a narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 25 grams of cocaine, aftér the said narcotic drug had been imported and brought into the United- States contrary to law, knowing that the said narcotic drug had theretofore been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law in that. the importation and bringing of any narcotic drug into the United States, except such amounts of crude opium and a, - coca leaves as the Commissioner of Narcotics finds to be _ is prohibited. = ¢ (Title 21, Sections 173 and 174, United States Code). necessary to provide for medical and legitimate uses only, 8 Srxrn. Couxr The Grand Jury further charges: | On or about the 31st day of July, 1956, in the Southern District of New York, . StS Hy .Y He Me Re Nor, MaxwELl, — ~ ; the defendant, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly did re- éeive, conceal, sell and facilitate the transportation, con- © -eealment and sale of a narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 25 grams of cocaine, after the said narcotic drug had been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, knowing that the said narcotic drug had theretofore been imported and brought into the United States contrary © | to law in that the importation and bringing of any narcotic — drug into the United States, except such amounts of crude opium and Ga leaves as the Commissioner of Narcotics finds to be necessary to provide for medical and legitimate uses only, is prohibited. eine gg eh eagle emer (Title 21, Sections 173 and 174, United States Code). 60 61 ry Isadictment. 6 The Grand Jury further charges: 1 £01 r e On or about the 6th day of May, 1958, in the Southern District of New York, Winston Massiah, Jesge Colson and Sylvia Ferris, the defendants, unlawfully, wilfully and . knowingly did purchase, possess, dispense and distribute a. certain narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 3. pounds, 8 ounces and 256 grains of cdtaine, in that the said defendants did not purchase, possess, dispense and distribute said nar- : cotic drug in or from the original stamped package. CTritle 26, Sections 4701, 4708, 4704(a), 4771(a). and. 7237 (a), United States Code). f 85 Eienta Count — The Grand Jury farther charges: 1. From on or. about the Ist day of January, 1956, and continuously thereafter up to and ineluding the date of the filing of this indictment, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, Wixston MassiaH,: Jesse Cor sox, Mrronet, ANFIELD, GRANVILLE Smaru, Nokr. MaxweEt, WLan Apams, Jon Henry Pourry, Ciarence Wuire, . Nicx Hor. max, Icxy Tuorn, SLI Ferris, and Joun Doz, a/k/a ‘‘Leon’’, meaning thereby to describe a Negro male, of medium complexion, with black hair and a medium build, approximately 40 years old, approximately 5/9” tall and weighing approximately 165 Ibs., the defendants, and Fadul Rene Harb Huasaff, Richard Roe, a/k/a ‘‘Rene’’, meaning thereby to describe a — al of a light complexion with dark hair and a medium build, 35 to 45 years old, approximately 5/5” tall and weighing approximately 165 lbs., Amanda Huasaff, Helen Hoe, meaning thereby to de- seribe the sister of Amanda Huasaff, a Caucasian female @. a . : * n — — ae of a light complexion with dark hair and a medium build, approximately 53 years old, approximately 557 tall and weighing approximately 135 Ibs., Paul King, James Barber, James Hunter, James Billips, Tony Gumbs, Joe Perry, Gerald Youngblood, Clyde Cadogan, Paul Washington, Sonny Campbell, Arthur Conquist, Harold Hoe, meaning thereby to describe.the brother-in-law of Amanda Huasaff, a Caucasian male, of light complexion with black hair and a medium build, approximately 55 years old, approximately 55” tall and weighing approximately 160 Ibs., and George Goe, a/k/a ‘‘Canales’’, meaning thereby to describe a Cau-- ‘easion male with an olive complexion, with dark hair and a medium build, 35 to 45 years old, approximately 5’8” tall and weighing approximately 150 lbs., named as co-conspira- tors but not as defendants, &nd divers other persons to the Grand Jury unknown, did unlawfully, wilfully: and know- ingly combine, confederate, conspire and agree together and with each other te commit certain offenses against. the United States, to wit, to violate Sections 173 and 174 of Title 21, United States Code, 2. It’ was’ 4 Part of, Seid conspiracy that the above- | mentioned defendants, and their ¢o-conspirators, would un- _ lawfully, wilfully and knowingly impor and bring narcotic drugs, ‘to wit, cocaine, into the United States, in violation - of Sections 173 and 174 ‘of Title 21, United States Code. 3. u % ‘forther a part of ‘éaid ‘conspiracy that the above Mentioned defendants, and their co-conspirators, would unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly receive, conceal, buy, sell and facilitate the transportation, concealment and sale of narcotic drugs, to wit, cocaine, the exact amount thereof being to the Grand Jury unknown, after said nar- cotie drugs had been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, end e that said narcotic drugs had been imported and . into the United States contrary to law, in violation of Sections 173 and 174 of. Title 21, United States Code. 2 In be of said conspiracy and to effect the ob- - jects thereof, the following overt acts, among N were, committed in the Southern Distriet of New York: 1. On or about June 18, 1956, the defendants Gurte ‘Sirs, Jonx Henry Purry, CLARENCE Wairz and Nick Holwar, had a conversation in a building in the vicinity of 100th Street and Manhattan Avenue, New _— New York. 2. On a about July 31, 1956, the defendants GranviLLz Smira, Winston Massian and Jog Henry Pury had a conversation in a bar at 10th Avenue and 17th Street, New York, New York. 25 3. On or about July 31, 1956, defendant Win Mas- slank had a conversation with .co-conspirator James Barber : aboard the vessel S. S. Santa Luisa. 4. On or about Joly 31 1956 defendants 2 Maxwati, and Winston Masslan had a conversation at 19 West 128th Street, | New York, New York. : 5. On or about July 31, 1956 defendants Nor. Max- WELL, WIA ApamMs and Winston. Massian had a con- versation at 19 West 128th Street, New York, New York. 6. In or about the month of August, 1986 defendants Mrronkrl. ANFIELD, JonN HENRY Pury, CLaRENCE WHITE «= and Nick Hor mar had a conversation i ina rab in the © 64 \ Indictment. > vicinity of 100th Street and Manhattan Avenue, New York, New York. 7. On or about G 8, 1956 hetendants 1 Max- 9 WELL, WIA Apams and Wrysron Massian had con- versation at 19 West 128th Street, New York, New Vork. 8. On or about October 10, 1956 defendants Noe. , WELL, WIA Apams, MrrcHELL ANFIELD and WINS Don Massian had a conversation at 19 West 12th Street, New York, New York. nae 9. On or about October 11, 1956 n JOHN Henny Purry, CLaRxxcR Wurre and Nick Houmay had a conver- sation in a building in the vicinity of 100th Street and Manhattan Avenue, New York, New Tork. 10. On or about October 11, 1956 defendants aun Wurtz, Winston Massian and Nick Hormay had a con- versation at 19 West 128th Street, New York, New York. 11. o or about U December 10, 1956 defendants JoHN -Henry-Purry, CLAN WRTr and Nick Hotmay had a conversation in a building in the vicinity of 100th Street and Manhattan Avenue, New York, New York. 12. Onor about December 10, 1956 co-conspirator James Hunter went to the vicinity of 8th Avenue and 16th Street, New York, New York. 14. On or about December 10, 1956 defendants Mrrcnetz, Ari, Joun Heney Purey,-Ciarence Warre and Nick Hol wax had a conversation in a building in the vicinity of 100th Street * Manhattan Avenue, New York, N. V. 2 14. On or about June 4, 1957 co-conspirator James Barber went to a bar in the vicinity of 8th Avenue and 16th Street, New York, New York. a — — — W 777 9995 — on 15. On or about July 17, 1957 co-conspirator James one Hunter went to a bar in the vicinity of 8th Avenue and 16th Street, New Yor, “ee York. aed 16. On or about Sule. 31, 1956 co-oomapizator. Janes Barber went to the vicinity of 8th Avenue and 16th Street, 5 N. ew Lork, New Lork. i J 17. On or about August 26, 1957 e J ames Hunter went to the vieinity of 8th Avenue and 16th Street, New York, New Fork. 18. On or * 1 18, 1957 been inlet James Billips went to the vieinity of A7th Street and 9th Avenue, New N New Lork. a 19. On or about December 30 1957 co-conspirator. J ames. . Billips went to the vicinity of th Avenue and 17th Street, : Ne York, New York 20. On or about . 10, 1958 co-Conspirator J ames Billips. went to a bar in the vicinity of 9th Avenue 9g 17th * Street, New York, New York. i 21. On or about May 6, 1958 defendant n 5 tie 2 was in possession and control of a quantity of adhesive * aboard the vessel S. S. Santa Maria. ial? | ( Title 91, United States Code, Sections 173 and 174). 7 J Morrow S. Rosson Dited States Attorney * „ W : : . 66 Judgment: On this 5th day of Jannary, 1967 ¢ came the attorney for the government and the menden e N in person and ö 1 counsel . 1 8 aot ‘Is Apsunexp. that the defendant has been convicted his plea of? not guilty, and a verdict of guilty by a Jag of the offense of unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly conspiring to import and bring narcotic drugs, to wit, o- eine, into the United States, in violation of Sections 173 and 174 of Title 21, United States Code (Title 21, United States: Code, Seetions 173 and 174), as charged in count eight—anp—the defendant Leonard Royal Aiken, indicted as John Doe, a/k/a ‘‘Leon’’, duly represented by counsel, 7 having admitted he is the same person previously convicted on One separate Federal Narcotics Violations, and the court 1 4 the defendant whether * has anything 1 say why judgment should not be u and no sufficient cause to the contrary being shown or appearing to the Court, Ir Is Aube that the defendant i is Suilty as es and convicted. „II Ia Ae mat the defendant is hereby 8 ted to the custody of the Attorney General or his au- thorized representative for imprisonment for a period of- ie THIRTEEN .(13) YEARS and ¥rNEp $15,000. The fine is to be ä paid or the defendant is to stand committed until the fine is paid or he is otherwise een, e to law (Count 8). This sentence is to run concurrently with the sentence . imposed bythe Honorable John M. Cannella on August 10, 1966 on indictment 64 2 Uni. * 67 Judgment. ‘Bail pending appeal is fixed in the sum of #100,00. I Is Onverep that the Clerk deliver a certified cp of . this judgment and commitment to the United States Mar- hal or other qualified officer and that the copy serve as 1 ee commitment of the defendant. ee T. Nine, f ey ‘United States District Judge. . Joun J. Orzvr, In., Clerk. : . * . . é 4 . 1 Insert ‘ by conse” or “witout t counsel; the court advised the defendant of right to counsel and asked him whether he desired to have counsel appointed by the court, and the defendant there- --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1027%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.