United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Holloman (4th Cir. 2000)
- United States v. Bayard Spector (8th Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Yarbrough (9th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Yarbrough (9th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Kevin R. Dailey (1st Cir. 1985)
- Young v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
- United States v. Gerald Jett (1st Cir. 1974)
- Jamaica Time Petroleum, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company (10th Cir. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
It is principally insisted upon appeal that the testimony of two undercover agents who testified for the prosecution should have been stricken, reliance being placed upon Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 441.
In light, however, of the reputation of the defendants for engagement in the whisky business, known to the regular Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents, and the nature and extent of their supervision and control over the activities of the undercover agents, we think that the fact that the amount of their compensation was later to be determined by responsible officials on the basis of an appraisal of the extent and quality of the work of the undercover agents is not fatal to their competence as witnesses.
This case differs from Williamson. It is more akin to Hill v. United States, 5 Cir., 328 F.2d 988.
Despite the interesting argument ably presented by counsel for the defendants, therefore, we conclude that there was no error in the District Court’s refusal to strike the testimony of the undercover agents.
There were secondary contentions on appeal, which we find to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.