*1 95, they suspected, fieer that due to some Roger HARRIS, Appellant, upon appellant conversation had with the might call, appellant attempt v. first that bribery. They a America, left with the command- UNITED of STATES ing Appellee. money they officer all the had in their pockets. they appellant’s When reached 17153. No. apartment they and, were admitted hav- Appeals United States Court of ing entered, and walked around looked of Columbia District Circuit. Appellant over the room. testified that 2, Argued Nov. 1962. cigar picked up one of the officers a and' “Well, 28, said: I Decided 1963. can’t afford to smoke- Feb. quarter.” I these. can’t afford two for a gave Appellant then the officers six dol- apiece. said, lars He testified: “I ‘You- ” get you cigars.’ all some The officers placed arrest, him under returned to gave headquarters, their and command- ing officer the twelve dollars. Upon appellant up- the trial defended ground entrapment on the of and re- quested theory. an instruction on that judge opinion The trial was of that the- evidence was not raise an sufficient to entrapment, issue as to and declined to- give agree the instruction. We with the trial court.
Affirmed. Judge
BAZELON,
(dissenting).
Chief
jury
appellant’s
If the
believed
version
permissible
of the facts and drew all the
favor,
could, my
inferences in his
it
in
opinion, reasonably have concluded that
Washington,
Bryant,
Mr. William B.
alleged
by
the
criminal act was induced
C.,
appellant.
D.
for
product
or was “the
the
ac-
of
creative
Atty.,
Frescoln,
Mr. Max
Asst. U. S.
tivity”
police.
of the
Sorrells v. United
Acheson,
with whom Mr. David C.
U. S. States,
210,
435, 451,
287 U.S.
53 S.Ct.
Atty.,
Q. Nebeker, Asst.
and Mr. Frank
216,
(1932).
by the Government given requested if
trapment be should * * *_» 2.) Page 129, also See note States, App.D.C. 68 United Kinard v. (1938). 250, 522 96 F.2d BUFFKIN, Appellant, C.
Robert
v. INC., NATIONAL, al., et
ALUM-CO Appellees.
No. 17048. Appeals Court of
United States of Circuit. District Columbia 20,
Argued 1962. Nov. Washington, Chozick, H. 28, Mr. Edward Decided Feb. 1963. C., appellant. D. for appearance No brief filed and no was appellees. was for entered Judge, and Before Chief Bazelon, Judges. Fahy and Circuit Burger, Judge. BAZELON, Chief Appellant in civil suit commenced this for Court the the United States District against appellees District of Columbia Ohio) (a and Alum- resident Browne of corporation). National, (an Co Inc. Ohio proc- personally served with Browne was individually president ess, of and as Alum-Co, of in the District while he was following response in to Columbia the in which received Cleveland letter he had At- from the office of the United States torney of Columbia: for the District complaint been “A criminal has You there- made to office. are this appear A.M. to 10:00 directed at fore 13, 1961, on U. S. October in [the] * * District Court House Washington, C., an As- D. before Attorney con- sistant United States