United States v. Cimino

224 F.2d 274
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 29, 1955·No. No. 339, Docket 23605·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

United States v. Cimino, 224 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1955).

224 F.2d 274 (United States v. Cimino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Dodge
61 Misc. 2d 497 (New York District Court, 1969)
State v. Sanborn
173 A.2d 854 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1961)
United States v. Dante Edward Gori
282 F.2d 43 (Second Circuit, 1960)
United States v. John Cimino
224 F.2d 274 (Second Circuit, 1955)