Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Diamond v. United States

94 F.2d 1012

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1938-02-17
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. It appearing upon the record in these appeals that evidence procured by wire tapping constituted a vital factor in the conviction of appellants, and that such testimony is forbidden by section 605 of the Federal Communication Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 605 (see Frank Carmine Nardone et al. v. United States of America, 58 S.Ct. 275, 82 L.Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court December 20, 1937), it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgments appealed from be, and the same are, reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court for new; trials. Reversed and remanded.

Citator

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

Cited by
2 opinions
DIAMOND v. UNITED STATES,94 F.2d 1012(6th Cir. 1938)
Max DIAMOND v. UNITED STATES. Louis ROTHKOPF v. UNITED STATES. Albert
PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES. Morris PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES. Morris KLEIN
v. UNITED STATES. Joe KATER v. UNITED STATES. Abraham BALABAN v. UNITED
STATES. Philip GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES. Harry ORLOFF v. UNITED STATES.
Sam GILDAR v. UNITED STATES.
Nos. 7746-7755.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
February 17, 1938.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; Samuel H. West, Judge.
Herman E. Kohen, William J. Corrigan, and Gerard Pilliod, all of Cleveland, Ohio, Julian C. Ryer, of Chicago, Ill., and C.F. McConnell, Henry Galen, Henry A. Pollack, Stephen M. Young, and Harry F. Glick, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.

E.B. Freed, U.S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States.
Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges, and O'BRIEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
It appearing upon the record in these appeals that evidence procured by wire tapping constituted a vital factor in the conviction of appellants, and that such testimony is forbidden by section 605 of the Federal Communication Act of 1934,47 U.S.C.A. § 605(see Frank Carmine Nardone et al. v. United States of America,58 S.Ct. 275, 82 L.Ed. ___, decided by the Supreme Court December 20, 1937), it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgments appealed from be, and the same are, reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court for new trials.

Reversed and remanded.Page 1013