United States v. Graziano J. Mancuso

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Graziano J. Mancuso

387 F.2d 376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 1968

Docket10822

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 376 (United States v. Graziano J. Mancuso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Graziano J. Mancuso, 387 F.2d 376 (4th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Upon rehearing en bane the opinion of the panel as reported in 378 F.2d 612 is adopted as that of the court. To that opinion we append the following:

After the remedial action taken by the district judge, we are satisfied that the record does not disclose, under the rules laid down in United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251, 86 S.Ct. 1416, 16 L.Ed.2d 510 (1966), and Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374, rehearing denied 386 U.S. 940, 951, 87 S.Ct. 970, 17 L.Ed.2d 880 (1967), such substantial prejudice to the defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights that it is appropriate to quash the prosecution and discharge the defendant as a matter of constitutional right. But that is not necessarily the end of the matter.

The government sent for and interviewed defendant’s accountant, itself a proper procedure, and made legitimate inquiry concerning his knowledge of defendant’s tax returns for the prosecution years. But the government did more. Whether at its instance, or by the voluntary act of the accountant, the government availed itself of the accountant’s entire file, including the accountant’s communications with counsel and work papers concerning the preparation of a defense. The government gave notice to defendant’s counsel of what was done, but only after it was done.

In argument, the government expressly disclaimed wrongful intent in what it did, and candidly admitted an extreme, even stupid, error of judgment. The government’s deficiencies in the proper conduct of this prosecution were not erased by notice to counsel of what was done, after it was done. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that in this case wrongful intent was absent. Except for such absence and the lack of substantial prejudice, we would dismiss the prosecution and discharge the defendant under our supervisory power over the district courts of this circuit.

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

PER CURIAM:

Upon rehearing en bane the opinion of the panel as reported in 378 F.2d 612 is adopted as that of the court. To that opinion we append the following:

After the remedial action taken by the district judge, we are satisfied that the record does not disclose, under the rules laid down in United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251, 86 S.Ct. 1416, 16 L.Ed.2d 510 (1966), and Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374, rehearing denied 386 U.S. 940, 951, 87 S.Ct. 970, 17 L.Ed.2d 880 (1967), such substantial prejudice to the defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights that it is appropriate to quash the prosecution and discharge the defendant as a matter of constitutional right. But that is not necessarily the end of the matter.

The government sent for and interviewed defendant’s accountant, itself a proper procedure, and made legitimate inquiry concerning his knowledge of defendant’s tax returns for the prosecution years. But the government did more. Whether at its instance, or by the voluntary act of the accountant, the government availed itself of the accountant’s entire file, including the accountant’s communications with counsel and work papers concerning the preparation of a defense. The government gave notice to defendant’s counsel of what was done, but only after it was done.

In argument, the government expressly disclaimed wrongful intent in what it did, and candidly admitted an extreme, even stupid, error of judgment. The government’s deficiencies in the proper conduct of this prosecution were not erased by notice to counsel of what was done, after it was done. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that in this case wrongful intent was absent. Except for such absence and the lack of substantial prejudice, we would dismiss the prosecution and discharge the defendant under our supervisory power over the district courts of this circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-graziano-j-mancuso-ca4-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack