United States v. Catalano

Second Circuit

United States v. Catalano

281 F.2d 184

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 16, 1960·No. No. 272, Docket 26002·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant complains because the district judge failed to accord him a hearing on his claims of improper attendance of the prosecutor in the jury room during their deliberations. But he relies only on hearsay statements attributed to a [185] deputy marshal whom he cannot now name or identify. And the claimed extraordinary malfeasance is specifically and convincingly answered by the affidavit of the public official accused. We think this presents only “incredible hearsay statements” not requiring to be dignified by a hearing, Johnson v. United States, 6 Cir., 239 F.2d 698, 699, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 940, 77 S.Ct. 1404, 1 L.Ed.2d 1539; and we are content to affirm on the reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Bruchhausen.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant complains because the district judge failed to accord him a hearing on his claims of improper attendance of the prosecutor in the jury room during their deliberations. But he relies only on hearsay statements attributed to a [185] deputy marshal whom he cannot now name or identify. And the claimed extraordinary malfeasance is specifically and convincingly answered by the affidavit of the public official accused. We think this presents only “incredible hearsay statements” not requiring to be dignified by a hearing, Johnson v. United States, 6 Cir., 239 F.2d 698, 699, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 940, 77 S.Ct. 1404, 1 L.Ed.2d 1539; and we are content to affirm on the reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Bruchhausen.

Affirmed.

United States v. Catalano, 281 F.2d 184 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

281 F.2d 184 (United States v. Catalano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related