United States v. Nicholas Dragotto

Second Circuit

United States v. Nicholas Dragotto

231 F.2d 315, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3391

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1956

Docket23868_1

StatusPublished

This text of 231 F.2d 315 (United States v. Nicholas Dragotto) 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. Nicholas Dragotto, 231 F.2d 315, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3391 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s conviction upon a substantive and a conspiracy count for violation of the anti-narcotics laws was based primarily on the events of November 4, 1954, when, as observed by a government agent, Dragotto left a bag containing glassine envelopes of heroin behind an entrance door jamb in a New York City building, whence it was retrieved by another and divided among himself and two companions. Later one Ojeda was arrested with heroin in his possession, and he testified to the circumstances of pickup of the heroin at the designated address and directly implicated Dragotto. The evidence was clearly sufficient to present a jury issue and to support the verdict.

The errors asserted as to the conduct of the trial are without merit. There being evidence of transactions on November 1 and 2, 1954, involving Dragotto and two of the defendants, as well as on November 4, which brought Ojeda into the picture, it results that *316 declarations of codefendants were admissible against Dragotto. United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 309 U.S. 664, 60 S.Ct. 590, 84 L.Ed. 1012; Dodson v. United States, 6 Cir., 215 F.2d 196. Although the judge in his original charge failed to cover Dragotto’s defense of an alibi, he corrected this inadvertence in his supplemental remarks before the jury retired — the utmost to which the defendant can be entitled. United States v. Blount, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 669. The appeal is fruitless.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s conviction upon a substantive and a conspiracy count for violation of the anti-narcotics laws was based primarily on the events of November 4, 1954, when, as observed by a government agent, Dragotto left a bag containing glassine envelopes of heroin behind an entrance door jamb in a New York City building, whence it was retrieved by another and divided among himself and two companions. Later one Ojeda was arrested with heroin in his possession, and he testified to the circumstances of pickup of the heroin at the designated address and directly implicated Dragotto. The evidence was clearly sufficient to present a jury issue and to support the verdict.

The errors asserted as to the conduct of the trial are without merit. There being evidence of transactions on November 1 and 2, 1954, involving Dragotto and two of the defendants, as well as on November 4, which brought Ojeda into the picture, it results that *316 declarations of codefendants were admissible against Dragotto. United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 309 U.S. 664, 60 S.Ct. 590, 84 L.Ed. 1012; Dodson v. United States, 6 Cir., 215 F.2d 196. Although the judge in his original charge failed to cover Dragotto’s defense of an alibi, he corrected this inadvertence in his supplemental remarks before the jury retired — the utmost to which the defendant can be entitled. United States v. Blount, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 669. The appeal is fruitless.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F.2d 315, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nicholas-dragotto-ca2-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack