United States v. Dioguardi

Second Circuit

United States v. Dioguardi

237 F.2d 57

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided September 27, 1956·No. Docket 24318·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the showing before us and having in mind the circumstances stated in F.R.Cr.P. 46(c), 18 U.S.C., as determining the amount of bail which “will insure the presence of the defendant,” we do not feel justified at this time in interfering with the discretion exercised by the district judges in refusing to reduce the bail for defendant pending trial heretofore fixed, particularly in view of the prospect of speedy trial, now set for October 15, 1956. The orders refusing to reduce the bail are therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the showing before us and having in mind the circumstances stated in F.R.Cr.P. 46(c), 18 U.S.C., as determining the amount of bail which “will insure the presence of the defendant,” we do not feel justified at this time in interfering with the discretion exercised by the district judges in refusing to reduce the bail for defendant pending trial heretofore fixed, particularly in view of the prospect of speedy trial, now set for October 15, 1956. The orders refusing to reduce the bail are therefore affirmed.

United States v. Dioguardi, 237 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

237 F.2d 57 (United States v. Dioguardi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related