United States v. Peter Di Palermo

Second Circuit

United States v. Peter Di Palermo

228 F.2d 901, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3526

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1956

Docket23791_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 F.2d 901 (United States v. Peter Di Palermo) 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. Peter Di Palermo, 228 F.2d 901, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3526 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having been convicted in 1949 on three counts of a counterfeiting charge, see United States v. Farina, 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 18, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 875, 71 S.Ct. 121, 95 L.Ed. 636, rehearing denied 341 U.S. 928, 71 S.Ct. 795, 95 L.Ed. 1359, and 2 Cir., 193 F.2d 436, defendant applied in 1954 for a new trial under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that he had been deprived of his constitutional rights, under the Sixth Amendment, to counsel and to confrontation. He asserted that, prior to the trial, he had an attack of encephalitis or sleeping sickness, and that, at the time of the hearings in this proceeding, he was still suffering from the residual effects of this illness. There was ample evidence to sustain the findings that defendant was represented by able and experienced counsel at the trial, that he actively consulted with counsel in aid of his defense to the charge of counterfeiting and that he was physically and mentally present at the trial. There was a long trial and the conflicting testimony and inferences therefrom were duly considered in a lengthy and comprehensive opinion by Judge Ryan. We cannot say that the findings were “clearly erroneous” ; Lipscomb v. United States, 8 Cir., 209 F.2d 831, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed. 1105. Indeed, the very fact that defendant was represented by able and experienced counsel at the trial would seem to make his belated claim dubious at best.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having been convicted in 1949 on three counts of a counterfeiting charge, see United States v. Farina, 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 18, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 875, 71 S.Ct. 121, 95 L.Ed. 636, rehearing denied 341 U.S. 928, 71 S.Ct. 795, 95 L.Ed. 1359, and 2 Cir., 193 F.2d 436, defendant applied in 1954 for a new trial under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that he had been deprived of his constitutional rights, under the Sixth Amendment, to counsel and to confrontation. He asserted that, prior to the trial, he had an attack of encephalitis or sleeping sickness, and that, at the time of the hearings in this proceeding, he was still suffering from the residual effects of this illness. There was ample evidence to sustain the findings that defendant was represented by able and experienced counsel at the trial, that he actively consulted with counsel in aid of his defense to the charge of counterfeiting and that he was physically and mentally present at the trial. There was a long trial and the conflicting testimony and inferences therefrom were duly considered in a lengthy and comprehensive opinion by Judge Ryan. We cannot say that the findings were “clearly erroneous” ; Lipscomb v. United States, 8 Cir., 209 F.2d 831, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed. 1105. Indeed, the very fact that defendant was represented by able and experienced counsel at the trial would seem to make his belated claim dubious at best.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F.2d 901, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peter-di-palermo-ca2-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack