United States v. Cimino

Second Circuit

United States v. Cimino

224 F.2d 274

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1955

DocketNo. 339, Docket 23605

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 224 F.2d 274 (United States v. Cimino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Cimino, 224 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s claim of double jeopardy rests on the declaration of a mistrial in prior proceedings involving this indictment for a sale of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174. Judge Palmieri declared a mistrial on the motion of the government when, after the impaneling and the swearing in of the jury, one juror spontaneously rose to say: “Your Honor, I am very much against narcotics, I think I should point that out to you now.” This effort of the trial judge to preserve the defendant from any possible bias on the part of the jury was not an abuse of his discretion, see United States v. Potash, 2 Cir., 118 F.2d 54, certiorari denied Potash v. United States, 313 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 1103, 85 L.Ed. 1540, and did not constitute double jeopardy in the later proceedings before a new jury. Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148, 12 S.Ct. 171, 35 L.Ed. 968; Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271, 15 S.Ct. 73, 39 L.Ed. 146.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s claim of double jeopardy rests on the declaration of a mistrial in prior proceedings involving this indictment for a sale of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174. Judge Palmieri declared a mistrial on the motion of the government when, after the impaneling and the swearing in of the jury, one juror spontaneously rose to say: “Your Honor, I am very much against narcotics, I think I should point that out to you now.” This effort of the trial judge to preserve the defendant from any possible bias on the part of the jury was not an abuse of his discretion, see United States v. Potash, 2 Cir., 118 F.2d 54, certiorari denied Potash v. United States, 313 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 1103, 85 L.Ed. 1540, and did not constitute double jeopardy in the later proceedings before a new jury. Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148, 12 S.Ct. 171, 35 L.Ed. 968; Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271, 15 S.Ct. 73, 39 L.Ed. 146.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 F.2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cimino-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack