U.S. v. Weinstein
| Decision Date | 16 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 83-5260,83-5570,s. 83-5260 |
| Citation | 778 F.2d 673 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip WEINSTEIN, "Dr. Philip Adamelli," Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein, Solomon Richman, a/k/a "Sol" a/k/a "Silver Fox," Robert "Bobby" Falvo, Defendants-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley KOWITT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Philip Weinstein and Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein, pro se.
David R. Mackenzie, P.A., Lauderhill, Fla., Harvey M. Stone, New York City, for Falvo.
Drew Neville, Oklahoma City, Okl., B.J. Rothbaum, Jr., New York City, for Richman.
Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Colan & Simon, P.A., Irwin J. Block, Theodore Klein, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Gloria C. Phares, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion June 12, 1985, 11 Cir., 762 F.2d 1522)
Before HILL, FAY and SMITH *, Circuit Judges.
The panel opinion is modified by the following amendments: Change the word "vacated" to "reversed" where used in the last sentence of Part III. B. 2. b. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1535 and the second sentence of Part VIII of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1543.
The following sentence is struck from Part IV A of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1537:
Because we vacate Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we decline to review further her claims as to sufficiency of the evidence.
In its place the following is substituted:
Because we reverse Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we will not recite at length the remaining evidence against her. As observed above, it was sufficient.
In all other respects, the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.
* Honorable Edward S. Smith, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bianco
...v. Vaughn, 830 F.2d 1185, 1186 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1531 (11th Cir.), modified, 778 F.2d 673 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 1519, 89 L.Ed.2d 917 In this case, while the warrant refers to the affidavit there is no express lan......
-
Fleischhauer v. Feltner
...S.Ct. 157, 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983); it has been rejected in United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1537 n. 13 (11th Cir.), modified, 778 F.2d 673 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 1519, 89 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986); and United States v. Bargaric, 706 F.2d 42, 55 (2d Cir.), cert. den......
-
U.S. v. Castro
...conspiracy, we conclude that no misjoinder occurred. United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1541, modified on other grounds, 778 F.2d 673 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 1519, 89 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986). II. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellants contend that the gove......
-
U.S. v. Feldman
......Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 55 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983); United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1537 n. 13 (11th Cir.), modified, 778 F.2d 673 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1110, 106 S.Ct. 1519, 89 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986). Because ... Id. 402 U.S. at 213, 91 S.Ct. at 1470. The Court indicated, however, that its "function is not to impose on the States .. what might seem to us a better system," but rather simply to determine whether such a procedure violated the federal constitution. Id. at 195-96, 221, 91 S.Ct. at 1461, ......
-
Digital Eyewitnesses: Using New Technologies to Authenticate Evidence in Human Rights Litigation.
...are prima facie authentic if their content is responsive to prior properly admitted communications."), modified on denial of reh'g, 778 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1985) (per (177.) Van Riper v. United States, 13 F.2d 961, 968 (2d Cir. 1926) ("If, for example, a man were to write a letter, properly......