Lusco v. United States, 117.
Decision Date | 02 January 1923 |
Docket Number | 117. |
Citation | 287 F. 69 |
Parties | LUSCO v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Alfred M. Bailey, of New York City (Solon Weit, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
William Hayward, U.S. Atty., of New York City (Moses Polakoff, Asst U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
The essential facts which led to the conviction of Lusco may be found in the opinion of Ganci v. United States (C.C.A.) 287 F. 60, filed contemporaneously herewith. In addition there were further details which served to emphasize the testimony of Smith and the officers. The verdict of guilty was amply supported by the evidence, and we need notice only two assignments of error:
(1) When Exhibits 4 to 9, inclusive, were offered and received in evidence against both defendants neither objection nor motion of any kind was made on behalf of Lusco. It is now urged that the admission of these exhibits as against Lusco was error.
On this record and in view of the testimony, it is too late to raise this question now; but, even if raised, it would be of no service to defendant. The protection of the Fourth Amendment safeguarded Ganci, but the illegal search and seizure as against Ganci cannot be availed of by Lusco. Haywood v United States (C.C.A.) 268 F. 795, 803, 804.
(2) Defendant called his wife as a witness. Smith had testified as to paying Lusco $64 of marked money for the narcotics, and manning and Pacetta had testified that, after they had arrested Lusco, they visited his premises. In view of defendant's objection, the officers were not permitted to testify as to what they did or what, if anything, they found upon this visit. Mrs. Lusco testified that she had never seen Smith. The prosecuting attorney did not ask any questions on cross-examination, but the court asked questions and received answers, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Fenley
... ... State v ... McLain, 92 Mo.App. 456; Richardson v. United ... States, 181 F. 5; Bowles v. State, 127 P. 888; ... Loeb v. State, 6 ... 908; Bowling v ... Commonwealth, 193 Ky. 642; Lusco v. United ... States, 287 F. 69; United States v. Kaplan, 286 ... F ... ...
-
Cradle v. United States
...of this motion." 9 The following authorities were cited: "Haywood v. United States (C.C.A.) 268 F. 795, at page 803, 804; Lusco v. United States (C.C.A.) 287 F. 69; Remus v. United States (C.C.A.) 291 F. 501 at page 510, 511; Schwartz v. United States (C.C.A.) 294 F. 528; Goldberg v. United......
-
The State v. Loftis
... ... Lock, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Finley, 259 Mo ... 414; Chicco v. United States, 284 F. 434; Lusco ... v. United States, 287 F. 69; State v ... ...
-
The State v. Fenley
...of the petition on account of insufficiency, but held the evidence obtained through the invalid search warrant inadmissible. In Lusco v. United States, 287 F. 69, the premises of Ganci were searched without a warrant in which some narcotics were discovered. Ganci and Lusco were arrested. At......