Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Bujese

405 F.2d 888

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-02-03
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: On June 7, 1967, this court affirmed Per Curiam a judgment convicting appellant of bank robbery in violation of 18 *889U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and of conspiring to rob a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. United States v. Bujese, 378 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1967). Our decision was vacated by the Supreme Court, 392 U.S. 297, 88 S.Ct. 2064, 20 L.Ed.2d 1113 (6/10/68), and remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), referring to Roberts v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Bujese. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
UNITED STATES v. BUJESE,405 F.2d 888(2nd Cir. 1969)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey BUJESE, Appellant.
No. 307, Docket 30574.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Decided February 3, 1969.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered on April 14, 1964 convicting appellant of bank robbery in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and conspiracy in violation of18 U.S.C. § 371after a trial before Hon. John M. Cannella and a jury.
Phylis Skloot Bamberger, New York City (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Frederick F. Greenman, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., for Southern District of New York, and Michael W. Mitchell, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORE and HAYS, Circuit Judges, and ZAVATT, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
On June 7, 1967, this court affirmed Per Curiam a judgment convicting appellant of bank robbery in violation ofPage 88918 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and of conspiring to rob a bank in violation of18 U.S.C. § 371. United States v. Bujese,378 F.2d 719(2d Cir. 1967). Our decision was vacated by the Supreme Court,392 U.S. 297, 88 S.Ct. 2064, 20 L.Ed.2d 1113 (6/10/68), and remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States,391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), referring to Roberts v. Russell,392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (also 6/10/68).

Upon reconsideration we reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial.
  1. Of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. ↩