People v. Buchalter
| Citation | 289 N.Y. 244,45 N.E.2d 425 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BUCHALTER et al. |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1942 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Kings County Court; Taylor, Judge.
On motion for reargument and for a stay.
Motions denied.
For former opinion, see 45 N.E.2d 225.
I. Maurice Wormser and Jesse Climenko, both of New York City, for Louis Buchalter, appellant.
Alfred J. Talley, James I. Cuff, M. M. Krindler, Harry G. Anderson, and Samuel Bader, all of New York City, for Emanuel Weiss, appellant.
Sydney Rosenthal, of Long Island City, Benjamin J. Jacobson, of New York City, and Leon Fischbein and Emanuel Rosenberg, both of Brooklyn, for Louis Capone, appellant.
Thomas Cradock Hughes, Acting Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Solomon A. Klein, Burton B. Turkus, Henry J. Walsh, and Edward H. Levine, all of Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
This court considered the refusal of the trial court to accord the defendant access to the records of the Police Department of the City of New York. The records in question were deposited with this court at the time of the argument of the appeal and were examined. The so-called survillance amounted to very little. It was of the entrance and lobby of the office building and not of the floor upon which defendant Buchalter had his office. The reports established that the defendant could and did elude the police at will. The ruling of the trial court was correct. See People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court of State of New York, 245 N. Y. 24, 156 N.E. 84, 52 A.L.R. 200.
This court did not restrict its review to a mere determination that there was no abuse of discretion as a matter of law by the Justices of the Supreme Court in denying the motions for a change of venue. A majority of the court is of the opinion that the discretion was properly exercised.
This court examined and found no error in the rulings of the trial court upon the challenges for implied bias. On the motion for a special jury under the statute, Judiciary Law, art. 18-B; Consol. Laws, ch. 30, the defendants appeared by attorney and consented to be tried before such special jury. A majority of this court is of the opinion that they thereby consented also to the statutory provision, Judiciary Law, s 749-aa, subd. 7, that rulings of the trial court upon challenges for actual bias are final and not appealable.
Motions denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Buchalter
-
People v. DiPiazza
...49, 56.) Whether or not a change of venue should be granted rests in the sound discretion of the trial court (see, e.g., People v. Buchalter, 289 N.Y. 244, 45 N.E.2d 425; People v. Hyde, 149 App.Div. 131, 134, 133 N.Y.S. 780, 783, Supra), and a number of cases have held that newspaper comme......
-
Buchalter v. People of State of New York Weiss v. Same Capone v. Same 8212 10, 1943
...Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 1 289 N.Y. 181, 45 N.E.2d 225, 248, rehearing denied 289 N.Y. 244, 45 N.E.2d 425. 2 Hebert v. State of Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 47 S.Ct. 103, 104, 71 L.Ed. 270, 48 A.L.R. 1102. See, also: In re Kemmler, 136 U.S......
-
Mathis v. State
...... Thus, with respect to objective reporting we find the Court of Appeals of New York in People v. Di Piazza, 24 N.Y.2d 342, 300 N.Y.S.2d 545, 248 N.E.2d 412 saying:. '* * * Whether or not a change of venue should be granted rests in the sound iscretion of the trial court (see, e.g., People v. Buchalter, 289 N.Y. 244, 45 N.E.2d 425; People v. Hyde, 149 App.Div. 131, 134, 133 N.Y.S. 780, Supra), and a number of cases have held that newspaper comment ......