United States v. Dominic Allocco and Rosario Rinaldi

Second Circuit

United States v. Dominic Allocco and Rosario Rinaldi

234 F.2d 955, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 1956

Docket23944_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 F.2d 955 (United States v. Dominic Allocco and Rosario Rinaldi) 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. Dominic Allocco and Rosario Rinaldi, 234 F.2d 955, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Allocco was convicted on one conspiracy and two substantive counts, and defendant Rinaldi on one substantive and one • conspiracy count, charging violations of the narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173,' 174, and 18 U.S.C. § 371. The evidence tending to prove that defendants had engaged in the illegal sale of narcotics was overwhelming, and the jury verdict thoroughly justified. Defendants object that certain government exhibits, lock-sealed narcotics containers, carried the name of one “S. E. Rubin Murphy,” rather than that of Oscar Wray, the government special employee who made the purchases in question. But these exhibits were identified as the containers of the illegally sold narcotics by long and tortuous oral testimony, in the face of which the matter of their marking assumes slight significance. Further, there were obvious reasons of administrative convenience to explain the markings. And it is to be noted that defendants successfully resisted the government’s offer to reopen the case for clarification when counsel raised the point on summation.

Defendants also object to admission of evidence of Rinaldi’s flight, which took place after the conspiracy was ended by Allocco’s arrest. But this evidence was clearly admissible against Rinaldi. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528; United States v. Heitner, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 105, 107, certiorari denied sub nom. Cryne v. United States, 326 U.S. 727, 66 S.Ct. 33, 90 L.Ed. 432. Although at one point the trial judge inadvertently allowed some such evidence to be admitted against Allocco, the point as to admissibility against Allocco alone is not before us on this appeal. In any event, this inadvertence of the judge on a minor matter unlikely to influence the jury was not prejudicial, particularly as against the convincing proof of guilt produced against them.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Allocco was convicted on one conspiracy and two substantive counts, and defendant Rinaldi on one substantive and one • conspiracy count, charging violations of the narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173,' 174, and 18 U.S.C. § 371. The evidence tending to prove that defendants had engaged in the illegal sale of narcotics was overwhelming, and the jury verdict thoroughly justified. Defendants object that certain government exhibits, lock-sealed narcotics containers, carried the name of one “S. E. Rubin Murphy,” rather than that of Oscar Wray, the government special employee who made the purchases in question. But these exhibits were identified as the containers of the illegally sold narcotics by long and tortuous oral testimony, in the face of which the matter of their marking assumes slight significance. Further, there were obvious reasons of administrative convenience to explain the markings. And it is to be noted that defendants successfully resisted the government’s offer to reopen the case for clarification when counsel raised the point on summation.

Defendants also object to admission of evidence of Rinaldi’s flight, which took place after the conspiracy was ended by Allocco’s arrest. But this evidence was clearly admissible against Rinaldi. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528; United States v. Heitner, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 105, 107, certiorari denied sub nom. Cryne v. United States, 326 U.S. 727, 66 S.Ct. 33, 90 L.Ed. 432. Although at one point the trial judge inadvertently allowed some such evidence to be admitted against Allocco, the point as to admissibility against Allocco alone is not before us on this appeal. In any event, this inadvertence of the judge on a minor matter unlikely to influence the jury was not prejudicial, particularly as against the convincing proof of guilt produced against them.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 955, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dominic-allocco-and-rosario-rinaldi-ca2-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack