United States v. Pacimeo

Second Circuit

United States v. Pacimeo

317 F.2d 75

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1963

DocketNo. 377, Docket 27809

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 317 F.2d 75 (United States v. Pacimeo) 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. Pacimeo, 317 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Pacimeo’s conviction in open court. The claims of error in regard to the prosecutor’s reference in summation to an exhibit which, although the subject of examination, had not been offered in evidence, and the receipt in evidence of a transcript of an interview between defendant and an Assistant United States Attorney when, it is alleged, the Assistant and his stenographer had or could have had their recollection sufficiently refreshed, fail, among other reasons, because of 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Appellant’s other points are wholly without merit.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Pacimeo’s conviction in open court. The claims of error in regard to the prosecutor’s reference in summation to an exhibit which, although the subject of examination, had not been offered in evidence, and the receipt in evidence of a transcript of an interview between defendant and an Assistant United States Attorney when, it is alleged, the Assistant and his stenographer had or could have had their recollection sufficiently refreshed, fail, among other reasons, because of 28 U.S.C. § 2111. Appellant’s other points are wholly without merit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pacimeo-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack