526 F.2d 344 | 5th Cir. | 1976
Appellants were convicted by a jury of distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Hart complains of alleged errors at the preliminary hearing conducted by a magistrate. Consistent with the spirit of F.R.Cr.P. 5.1 and under our decision in Harris v. U. S., 458 F.2d 670, cert. denied, sub nom., Scott et al. v. U. S., 409 U.S. 888, 93 S.Ct. 195, 34 L.Ed.2d 145 (1972), the magistrate was not required to permit Hart to elicit from the government witness, by cross-examination, the identity of the informer. Arguably Coleman et al., v. Burnett, 155 U.S.App.D.C., 477 F.2d 1187 (1973), is contrary, but it is not wholly consistent with F.R. Cr.P. 5.1(a), and we decline to follow it.
The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment was not violated by the magistrate’s refusal to require the DEA agent-witness to produce a written statement of the undercover agent.
Counsel for appellant Hammond has filed a motion asking that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel and also has filed an Anders v. California
The convictions are affirmed.
. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).