## Facts

- Federal agents and a confidential informant targeted Claudell Martine White and Phillip White (spouses) in an investigation of heroin distribution in El Paso, Texas.
- On July 21, 1976, an attempted transaction arranged through Cornelius Braxton did not occur due to nearby police activity; the agent described the intended deal as involving marijuana, not heroin.
- On August 31, the informant was directed to attempt a heroin purchase from Claudell or Braxton; the informant met Larry Williams, concluded from conversation that Williams was selling for Claudell, and later bought a half-gram of heroin from Williams.
- On September 3 and 4, the informant purchased small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed potentially selling for him.
- The September 4 purchase formed the basis of Phillip’s substantive charge; agents took custody of the heroin from the informant afterward but did not witness the transaction.
- On September 7 and 8, the informant spoke with Claudell about dealing heroin; Claudell stated conditions were “hot” and she could not afford to have him deal for her. Phillip was not present, and Claudell did not participate in Phillip’s negotiations with the informant.
- A jury convicted both defendants of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 846), and convicted Phillip of possession of heroin with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Claudell and Phillip White entered an agreement to possess heroin with intent to distribute, supporting convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
2. Whether heroin admitted against Phillip on the September 4 transaction was inadmissible due to an inadequate chain of custody where agents did not observe the purchase and the informant could theoretically have obtained heroin elsewhere.
3. Whether additional trial issues (including prejudicial testimony and severance) required reversal.

## Decision

- The court reversed both defendants’ conspiracy convictions for insufficient evidence of an agreement to distribute heroin.
- The court affirmed Phillip White’s conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
- The court held the heroin was admissible despite speculative concerns about a pre-seizure “break” in custody; any uncertainty affected weight for the jury, not admissibility.
- Because the conspiracy convictions were reversed for insufficient evidence, the court did not reach Claudell’s evidentiary challenge or Phillip’s severance claim.

## Legal Principles

- A drug conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an agreement to commit the drug offense; equivocal statements, uncorroborated inferences, or isolated events may be insufficient to show the required agreement.
- Chain-of-custody objections generally fail where they show only a “mere possibility” of tampering or substitution; such speculative gaps ordinarily go to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility.
- The same weight-versus-admissibility approach may apply even when the claimed gap occurs before the government takes possession of the item, so long as the item is sufficiently connected to the charged transaction for admission.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit found the government’s proof did not establish a heroin-distribution agreement involving Claudell and Phillip White and reversed the conspiracy convictions, but it upheld Phillip’s possession-with-intent conviction, ruling that speculative pre-seizure chain-of-custody concerns did not bar admission of the heroin.


United States v. White, 569 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1978)