United States v. Cohn
| Decision Date | 26 May 1964 |
| Citation | 230 F. Supp. 589 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Roy M. COHN and Murray E. Gottesman. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, by Gerald Walpin, Donald J. Cohn, Asst. U. S. Attys., for the Government.
Frank G. Raichle, Buffalo, N. Y., Thomas A. Bolan, John F. Lang, New York City, for defendant Cohn.
At a conference with the attorneys held on April 29, 1964, the Court set this case down for trial on June 9, 1964. At the time of the conference, Mr. Raichle, attorney for defendant Cohn, asked for and was granted leave to file material in support of his informal application for a postponement of the trial until the fall. On May 15, 1964, an affidavit by Mr. Raichle, dated May 14, 1964, was filed in support of a proposed motion by defendant Cohn for a continuance until the fall or, in the alternative, for a change of venue under Fed.R.Crim.P. 21 (a).
A further conference was had with the attorneys on May 19, 1964, at which Mr. Raichle on behalf of defendant Cohn moved for such a continuance or, in the alternative, for a change of venue, for the reasons stated in his affidavit of May 14. At this conference the United States Attorney and defendant Gottesman were given until May 22, 1964 to file papers on the motion. The United States Attorney filed an opposing affidavit and a memorandum of law, and defendant Gottesman filed no papers, having previously furnished the Court with affidavits, a memorandum of law and copies of newspaper clippings in connection with his motion for severance.1
Defendant Cohn filed a letter dated May 19, 1964, signed by Thomas A. Bolan, Esq. on his behalf, citing certain authorities on which defendant Cohn relies in support of his motion. In addition defendant Cohn filed a letter dated May 25, 1964, signed by Saxe, Bacon & O'Shea, replying to the Government's opposing papers.
The Court has carefully considered the foregoing papers. It appears undisputed that beginning with the McCarthy hearings in the early '50s defendant Cohn has received considerable attention in the press, and that the first trial of this indictment was widely reported.
The Court is not persuaded that the publicity called to its attention by defendant Cohn or by defendant Gottesman precludes the selection of a fair and impartial jury. United States v. Hoffa, 156 F.Supp. 495 (S.D.N.Y.1957). This case does not involve a crime of violence which inflames public opinion against a defendant as in United States v. Dioguardi, 147 F.Supp. 421 (S.D.N.Y.1956), involving an acid throwing attack on a newspaper columnist, and United States ex rel. Bloeth v. Denno, 313 F.2d 364 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 978, 83 S.Ct. 1112, 10 L.Ed.2d 143 (1963), involving murder.
There is no reason to believe that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 16077.
...of all news, and at the same time intelligent? Compare Rees v. Peyton, 341 F.2d 859, 863 (CA 4, 1965); United States v. Cohn, 230 F.Supp. 589, 590-591 (S.D.N.Y.1964). Should a Federal Judge now speculate whether change of scene or postponement might have offered a way to administer some jud......
-
United States ex rel. Gallo v. NEW YORK ST. DEPT. OF COR. SERV.
...with prejudice as to deny a fair trial." But cf. United States v. Kahaner, 204 F.Supp. 921, 924 (S.D.N.Y.1962); United States v. Cohn, 230 F.Supp. 589, 590 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). No authority is cited for this broad con......