Michael Peck v. United States

Second Circuit

Michael Peck v. United States

102 F.3d 1319, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33635, 1996 WL 736476

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 27, 1996·No. 1021, Docket 94-2444·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The Court voted to rehear this appeal in banc to consider the harmless error analysis [1320] applicable on review of a collateral attack upon a conviction obtained after a jury charge that, in conformity with then prevailing law, see United States v. Caming, 968 F.2d 232, 238-41 (2d Cir.1992), did not include an aspect of the mental state necessary for conviction, an aspect subsequently required, see Ratzlafv. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 148, 114 S.Ct. 655, 663, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). The Supreme Court having clarified harmless error analysis in California v. Roy, - U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 337, 136 L.Ed.2d 266 (1996), the in bane court dissolves itself and leaves the appeal for reconsideration by the original panel in fight of Roy.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Court voted to rehear this appeal in banc to consider the harmless error analysis [1320] applicable on review of a collateral attack upon a conviction obtained after a jury charge that, in conformity with then prevailing law, see United States v. Caming, 968 F.2d 232, 238-41 (2d Cir.1992), did not include an aspect of the mental state necessary for conviction, an aspect subsequently required, see Ratzlafv. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 148, 114 S.Ct. 655, 663, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). The Supreme Court having clarified harmless error analysis in California v. Roy, - U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 337, 136 L.Ed.2d 266 (1996), the in bane court dissolves itself and leaves the appeal for reconsideration by the original panel in fight of Roy.