United States v. Cohen

Second Circuit

United States v. Cohen

148 F.2d 94, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2401

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1945

DocketNo. 248

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 148 F.2d 94 (United States v. Cohen) 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. Cohen, 148 F.2d 94, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2401 (2d Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for conspiring to violate the Selective Training and .Service Act, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 311. The appellant raises two questions. The first, that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. A study of the record indicates ample evidence upon which the jury could have based its conviction. The second contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to order an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had referred to written notes — relating to the defendant’s statements to him — before testifying at the trial, to produce his notes for scrutiny by the defense counsel. The majority of this court, for the reasons stated in United States v. Ebeling, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 254, find no error in the trial judge’s action. Judge Frank, for the reasons stated in his dissent in the Ebeling case, is of the opinion that this court should see the paper's in question before arriving at its decision; but, in fact, the district attorney did submit the papers to this court, and Judge Frank, after reading them, concurs in the conclusion that there was no prejudicial error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for conspiring to violate the Selective Training and .Service Act, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 311. The appellant raises two questions. The first, that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. A study of the record indicates ample evidence upon which the jury could have based its conviction. The second contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to order an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had referred to written notes — relating to the defendant’s statements to him — before testifying at the trial, to produce his notes for scrutiny by the defense counsel. The majority of this court, for the reasons stated in United States v. Ebeling, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 254, find no error in the trial judge’s action. Judge Frank, for the reasons stated in his dissent in the Ebeling case, is of the opinion that this court should see the paper's in question before arriving at its decision; but, in fact, the district attorney did submit the papers to this court, and Judge Frank, after reading them, concurs in the conclusion that there was no prejudicial error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 F.2d 94, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cohen-ca2-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack