UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
January 29, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
JERRY HERMAN ARNOLD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Present: HONORABLE J. EDWARD LUMBARD, HONORABLE WILFRED FEINBERG, HONORABLE THOMAS J. MESKILL, Circuit Judges,
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was submitted by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute about one pound of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841 following a jury trial before Judge Haight of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment and six years special parole.
Appellant's first claim of error is Judge Haight's refusal to suppress certain statements made by appellant when questioned by an Assistant U.S. Attorney following his arrest. Miranda warnings were freshly given, and Judge Haight found that appellant knowingly and voluntarily consented to speak with the Assistant without counsel. There is nothing in the circumstances to suggest that Judge Haight's finding was erroneous, and we see no reason to disturb it on appeal.
Appellant next objects to the introduction of certain testimony at trial. The testimony objected to, however, was clearly relevant both as background to the heroin transaction charged in the indictment, and as specific evidence of appellant's participation in it.
Finally, appellant claims error in the government's failure to give appellant any information concerning appellant's relationship with the government informant, Allan Ivanhoe.It is claimed that this failure violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). However, it is well settled that there is no need for the government to transmit such information when the defense is on notice of the essential facts that would lead to the allegedly helpful evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Erb, 543 F.2d 438, 443 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 981 (1976). Obviously where the alleged exculpatory material concerns the prior relationship between the informant and the defendant himself, the defense is on sufficient notice of it.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.