Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Minkoff, 538 (1950)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 538 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 20, 1950
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 181 F.2d 538 UNITED STATES v. MINKOFF et al. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued April 3, 1950. Decided April 20, 1950. Gallop, Climenko & Gould, Jesse Climenko, New York City (Martin N. Whyman, New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City (John C. Hilly, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for the United States. Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants' motion asks that we remand t
More

181 F.2d 538

UNITED STATES
v.
MINKOFF et al.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 3, 1950.

Decided April 20, 1950.

Gallop, Climenko & Gould, Jesse Climenko, New York City (Martin N. Whyman, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City (John C. Hilly, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for the United States.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Appellants' motion asks that we remand this case to the district court in order that they may there seek a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.1 we should only entertain such a motion in case the district court indicates, after a hearing, that it intends to grant a motion for a new trial.

Notes:

1

Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 771; Dession, New Rules of Criminal Procedure, 56 Yale L.J. (1947) 197, 232; N. Y. Univ. School of Law Institute-Proceedings, Vol. VI, p. 206

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer