United States v. Charles Piasecki

Third Circuit

United States v. Charles Piasecki

300 F.2d 152, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2800, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5694

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1962

Docket13732

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 F.2d 152 (United States v. Charles Piasecki) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Charles Piasecki, 300 F.2d 152, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2800, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5694 (3d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The primary problem presented by this case is analogous to that which was before us in United States v. Alaimo, 297 F.2d 604 (3 Cir. 1961). In that case we held that thirty-four counts based on individual violations of 29 U.S.C.A. § 186(b), (d), the Taft-Hartley Act, could be included validly in one indictment and that a defendant could legally be tried, convicted and sentenced on each count. We are bound on the Alaimo ruling here and conclude therefore that Piasecki was legally convicted on all thirty-four counts of the indictment in the case at bar.

Other points raised do not require extended discussion. We are of the opinion that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury to disregard the improper remarks of the United States Attorney in his closing argument were sufficient to *153 protect the defendant. The charge was adequate and proper. The rights of the defendant were preserved. The court below committed no error in denying the motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. Since no prejudicial error appears, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The primary problem presented by this case is analogous to that which was before us in United States v. Alaimo, 297 F.2d 604 (3 Cir. 1961). In that case we held that thirty-four counts based on individual violations of 29 U.S.C.A. § 186(b), (d), the Taft-Hartley Act, could be included validly in one indictment and that a defendant could legally be tried, convicted and sentenced on each count. We are bound on the Alaimo ruling here and conclude therefore that Piasecki was legally convicted on all thirty-four counts of the indictment in the case at bar.

Other points raised do not require extended discussion. We are of the opinion that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury to disregard the improper remarks of the United States Attorney in his closing argument were sufficient to *153 protect the defendant. The charge was adequate and proper. The rights of the defendant were preserved. The court below committed no error in denying the motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. Since no prejudicial error appears, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F.2d 152, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2800, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-piasecki-ca3-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack