Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Wapnick

315 F.2d 96

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1963-03-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The evidence here was quite sufficient and the case was fairly tried and properly presented to the jury. Hence we find no reversible error. Defendant Wapnick’s contention of double jeopardy is prima facie untenable in the light of United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314, and Abbate v.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
10 opinions
UNITED STATES v. WAPNICK,315 F.2d 96(2nd Cir. 1963)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harold WAPNICK, James LaFazia,
Charles Gersh, and David Brill, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 242, Docket 27537.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 5, 1963.
Decided March 27, 1963.
Herbert S. Siegal, New York City, for defendant-appellant Harold Wapnick.

Joseph Brill, New York City, for defendant-appellant James LaFazia.

Jacob W. Friedman, New York City, for defendants-appellants Charles Gersh and David Brill.

Jerome C. Ditore, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N Y (Joseph P. Hoey, U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., on the brief), for appellee.
Before CLARK and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The evidence here was quite sufficient and the case was fairly tried and properly presented to the jury. Hence we find no reversible error. Defendant Wapnick's contention of double jeopardy isprima facieuntenable in the light of United States v. Lanza,260 U.S. 377, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314, and Abbate v. United States,359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729.

Affirmed.Page 97