United States v. Vincent Di Donna

Second Circuit

United States v. Vincent Di Donna

276 F.2d 956, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4910

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1960

Docket25881

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F.2d 956 (United States v. Vincent Di Donna) 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. Vincent Di Donna, 276 F.2d 956, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4910 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

276 F.2d 956

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Vincent DI DONNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 280.

Docket 25881.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 7, 1960.

Decided April 8, 1960.

Anthony R. Palermo, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Otis Pratt Pearsall, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Stephen A. Fuschino, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and HINCKS and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge properly refused to give the jury any instruction on the subject of entrapment. There was no evidence in the record to support such a defense as the defendant himself testified that he did not know what was in the package which he admittedly delivered to the narcotics agent. United States v. Pagano, 2 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 884, 885. The other allegations of error are entirely without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

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