Piccioli v. United States, 4
| Decision Date | 01 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 4,4 |
| Citation | 88 S.Ct. 899,390 U.S. 202,19 L.Ed.2d 1034 |
| Parties | Carl PICCIOLI v. UNITED STATES. * |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Alfred Belinkie, for petitioner Carl Piccioli.
Edward G. Burstein, for petitioner Pellegrino Millo.
David Goldstein and Jacob D. Zeldes, for petitioner Alfred Grassia.
Francis J. DiMento, Paul J. Burns and Ronald R. Popeo, for petitioners James J. Driscoll and others.
Albert J. Krieger and Robert Kasanof, for petitioners Joseph Serao and others.
Max M. Barr, for petitioner Samuel Wrieole.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding, for the United States in No. 4 and No. 2, Misc.
Solicitor General Marshall for the United States in Nos. 5, 6 and 10.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States in No. 32.
Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit, for the United States in No. 374.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments of the courts below are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further consideration in the light of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 716, 19 L.Ed.2d 889.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of Nos. in the consideration or decision of these cases.
* Together with No. 5, Millo v. United States; No. 6, Grassia v. United States; No. 10, Driscoll et al. v. United States; No. 32, Serao et al. v. United States; No. 374, Wrieole v. United States; and No. 2, Misc., Gjanci v. United States, all on petitions for writs of certiorari. Nos. 5, 6, 32, and 2, Misc., are to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 374 to the Third Circuit, and No. 10 to the First Circuit. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 2, Misc., is also granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Isaacs
...of the single offense. Id. See also Driscoll v. United States, 1 Cir., 356 F.2d 324, 331, vacated on other grounds, 390 U.S. 202, 88 S.Ct. 899, 19 L.Ed.2d 1034; United States v. Warner, 8 Cir., 428 F.2d 730, 735, cert. denied 400 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 194, 27 L.Ed.2d 191; Greenbaum v. United S......
-
United States v. United States Coin and Currency 25 8212 26, 1969
... ... Justice Holmes in a brilliant chapter in his book, The Common Law. 4 The forfeiture action in the present case was instituted as an in rem proceeding in which the money itself is the formal respondent. More ... ...
-
US v. Goldberg
...§ 142 at 470-73 (1982), citing Driscoll v. United States, 356 F.2d 324, 332 (1st Cir.1966), vacated on other grounds, 390 U.S. 202, 88 S.Ct. 899, 19 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1968). The tests for multiplicity and duplicity may not be precise mirror images, however; to find counts of an indictment dupli......
-
Silbert v. United States
...certiorari in Angelini, vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment therein, and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit. 390 U.S. 204, 88 S.Ct. 899, 19 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1968). The Seventh Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, 393 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir., April 9, 1968), * * * In Marchetti, the Court ......