U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1962

Reginald C. Jackson v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 23, 1962 · Edgerton, Prettyman, Fahy

301 F.2d 515 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. William H. Collins, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Nathan J. Paulson and Thomas A. Flannery, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Howard Donald S. Washington v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
United States v. Tolbert (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1981)
Willie Garcia v. J. E. Baker, Warden (10th Cir. 1970)
Moss v. Cox (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1970)
Edward R. Holloway v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of the narcotics laws and is a companion case to No. 16402, Holloway v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. -, 301 F.2d 514, decided today. The first part of the series of events involved in these two cases is related in the opinion in Holloway. Appellant Jackson was one of the three men in the automobile involved. He was in the rear seat as the officers approached. After the officer had opened the curbside door of the car, both officers saw Jackson throw a package, which appeared to be a pack of cigarettes, through the open door onto the sidewalk. The officers retrieved the package and found that it contained two cigarettes, a piece of a match cover, and ten capsules which were later found to contain heroin.

On this appeal the principal points are that the heroin contained in the package was inadmissible as evidence, that fingerprint evidence was inadmissible, and that the trial judge erred in failing to grant motions for judgment of acquittal. We find no error.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.