United States v. Clarence Williams
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
The constitutionality of the presumption of knowledge of importation drawn from the fact of possession of heroin has been settled in Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 , 90 S.Ct. 642 , 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).
There was ample evidence of dominion and control to present a jury question as to whether appellant had constructive possession.
We find no basis for reversal under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), respecting testimony as to statements made by appellant’s codefendant. The statements were made during the commission of the crime, Kay v. United States, 421 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1970), and do not appear in any way to have implicated appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.