United States of America, Appellee, v. Elba Luisa Morales, Appellant, 406 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir. 1969)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 406 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir. 1969) Submitted February 18, 1969
Decided February 19, 1969

Thomas D. Edwards, New York City, for appellant.

Gary P. Naftalis, Charles P. Sifton, Asst. U. S. Attys., Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before CLARK, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, retired,*  WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant claims that a seller of narcotic drugs who fails to comply with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) may not be convicted for a violation of that section because a compliance would destroy the seller's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Appellant relies by analogy upon the United States Supreme Court holdings in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S. Ct. 697, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S. Ct. 716, 19 L. Ed. 2d 906 (1968); and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S. Ct. 722, 19 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1968).

We have held in four recent decisions of our court that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not provide a defense to a prosecution for selling narcotic drugs without the mandatory written order form required by 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). United States v. Oliveros, 398 F.2d 349 (2 Cir. 1968) (per curiam); United States v. Smith (2 Cir. October 1, 1968) (aff'd in open court); United States v. McLean (2 Cir. Dec. 9, 1968) (aff'd in open court); United States v. Minor, 398 F.2d 511 (2 Cir. 1968). We adhere to those rulings.

Conviction affirmed.

 *

Sitting on the Court of Appeals by designation

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.