Matter of Beecher v. Mack

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding evidence sufficient that substances were \crack cocaine or cocaine base\ where government expert performed chemical tests, and described the exhibits as a \big chunk\ of cocaine base, which was the \proper\ name for \rock\ or \crack cocaine\
• upholding the validity of 100:1 ratio, citing its rationale in U.S. v. House (infra.)
• finding the evidence sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when “narcotics detective testified that in his opinion the -11- government’s exhibits were crack cocaine”
• “[T]he identity of a controlled substance can also be proved by circumstantial evidence and opinion testimony.”
• identity of controlled substance may be proven through circumstantial evidence and opinion testimony; experienced narcotics detective opined substance was crack cocaine
• identity of controlled substance may be proven through circumstantial evidence and opinion testimony; narcotics detective, based on his experience and observation, testified substance was crack cocaine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).