United States v. Kiger

Second Circuit

United States v. Kiger

421 F.2d 1396

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1970

DocketNo. 436, Docket 33689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 421 F.2d 1396 (United States v. Kiger) 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. Kiger, 421 F.2d 1396 (2d Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the conviction below on the opinion below, reported in 297 F.Supp. 339 (SDNY1969) and do so upon the authority binding upon this court, United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). And see United States v. Miller, 367 F.2d 72 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 911, 87 S.Ct. 855, 17 L.Ed.2d 787 (1967), rehearing denied, 392 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 2049, 20 L.Ed.2d 1378 (1968). With reference to the claim that the judge below abused his discretion in declining to accept the proffered offer of a plea of nalo contendere, we discover no reason to interfere with this decision of the trial judge. By refusing to accept the plea after the distribution and receipt of memoranda relative thereto, the judge required the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every allegation of the indictment.

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the conviction below on the opinion below, reported in 297 F.Supp. 339 (SDNY1969) and do so upon the authority binding upon this court, United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). And see United States v. Miller, 367 F.2d 72 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 911, 87 S.Ct. 855, 17 L.Ed.2d 787 (1967), rehearing denied, 392 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 2049, 20 L.Ed.2d 1378 (1968). With reference to the claim that the judge below abused his discretion in declining to accept the proffered offer of a plea of nalo contendere, we discover no reason to interfere with this decision of the trial judge. By refusing to accept the plea after the distribution and receipt of memoranda relative thereto, the judge required the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every allegation of the indictment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 F.2d 1396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kiger-ca2-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack