United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley & Booker T. Nelson, 340 F.2d 989 (4th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Coolie John Crim, Harold Boyd Spradley & Booker T. Nelson, 340 F.2d 989 (4th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Holloman (ca4, 2000-12-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Holloman
4th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Holloman *See also United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding that federal bribery statute not violated by offers of immu- nity or leniency to co-conspirators). 4 UNITED STATES v. HOLLOMAN relies on United States v. Crim, 340 F.2d 989, 990 (4th Cir. 1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yarbrough
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Valle-Ferrer, 739 F.2d 545, 546-47 (11th Cir.1984) (witness’ anticipated receipt of money if his testimony resulted in conviction did not make him incompetent to testify); United States v. Kimble, 719 F.2d 1253, 1255 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 , 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) (agreement operative only if witness’ cooperation found acceptable); Insana, 423 F.2d at 1168-69 (that pleader not yet sentenced did not disqualify him as a witness); United States v. Crim, 340 F.2d 989, 990 (4th Cir.1965) (agent witness’ testimony admissible though compensat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yarbrough
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Valle-Ferrer, 739 F.2d 545, 546-47 (11th Cir.1984) (witness' anticipated receipt of money if his testimony resulted in conviction did not make him incompetent to testify); United States v. Kimble, 719 F.2d 1253, 1255 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 , 104 S.Ct. 984 , 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984) (agreement operative only if witness' cooperation found acceptable); Insana, 423 F.2d at 1168-69 (that pleader not yet sentenced did not disqualify him as a witness); United States v. Crim, 340 F.2d 989, 990 (4th Cir.1965) (agent witness' testimony admissible though compensation de…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bayard Spector (2×)
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Testimony of an undercover agent was allowed even though the amount of compensation was to be determined after trial "on basis of an appraisal of extent and quality of [their] work." United States v. Crim, 340 F.2d 989, 990 (4th Cir.1965). "[A] conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice ... even though the accomplice is in a position to gain favors from the government by his testimony." Lyda v. United States, 321 F.2d 788, 794 (9th Cir.1963) 1 The panel in Waterman pointed out that it was not faced with the situation of a paid informant who might be more likely to…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kevin R. Dailey
1st Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Finally, in United States v. Crim, 340 F.2d 989, 900 (4th Cir.1965), the testimony of undercover agents was found admissible even though the amount of their compensation was to be determined after trial “on the basis of an appraisal of the extent and quality of [their] work____” Although Dailey cites Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 441 (5th Cir.1962), as an analogous contingent fee case in which the conviction was overturned, Williamson has no applicability here.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Coolie John CRIM, Harold Boyd Spradley and Booker T. Nelson, Appellants
9271_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 11, 1965.
340 F.2d 989
1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6919
Phillip K. Wingard, Lexington, S. C., for appellants., Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty. (Marvin L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief) for appellee.
Haynsworth, Orem, Hutcheson.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

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.