United States v. Colletti
| Decision Date | 07 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | Docket 24498.,No. 383,383 |
| Citation | 245 F.2d 781 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rosario Nick COLLETTI, Defendant, Jack Salvatore Russo, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., New York City, for appellee; Myles J. Ambrose, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.
Bella V. Dodd, Dodd, Cardiello & Blair, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before CHASE, HINCKS and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.
The sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury, being clear, the appellant relies for reversal on only claimed trial errors.
The failure of the government to identify the so-called "special employee" with whom Agent Palma arranged for the purchase of the heroin is of no consequence. There was no request for that. Absent such an application to the court, the appellant has failed to show any denial of his rights and Rovario v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639; Portomene v. United States, 5 Cir., 221 F.2d 582; United States v. Conforti, 7 Cir., 200 F.2d 365; and Sorrentino v. United States, 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 627 are, accordingly, all distinguishable. The government's election not to call this man as a witness was not shown to amount to a suppression of material evidence and is no cause for reversal either. Morton v. United States, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 147 F.2d 28.
The introduction, during his cross-examination, of the appellant's application for an identity card, which he used in aid of securing work as a long-shoreman with the John W. McGrath Corporation, was after he had been shown it, had read it, and had testified without objection that the number of dependents he had was listed on it as three; that he had said what was on the paper; and that it was dated April 21, 1952. He then testified, also without objection, that he couldn't remember "when it came to figuring out" his salary whether he did list three dependents. Assuming that it was improper to cross-examine him on that subject, the harm, if any can be perceived, was done, without objection, before the card was received in evidence. To be sure, he testified that the application was not written by him, but its reception added nothing in contradiction of his testimony and was, at most, harmless error.
After testifying on direct examination that he had never been convicted of any "crime or offense," the government's attorney was allowed to show on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bentvena
...that he never had any connection with narcotics, opened the door to proof impeaching this specific testimony. Cf. United States v. Colletti, 245 F.2d 781 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Russo v. United States, 355 U.S. 874, 78 S.Ct. 125, 2 L.Ed.2d 78 (1957); United States v. Nelson, 273 F.2d 459 (......
-
United States v. Glasser, 626
...good conduct in issue, and the government could therefore properly cross-examine him on the earlier incident. See United States v. Colletti, 245 F.2d 781, 782 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Russo v. United States, 355 U.S. 874, 78 S.Ct. 125, 2 L.Ed. 2d 78 There remains the question whethe......
-
McCoy v. State
...vital question had not been asked, the Circuit Court declined to reverse the District Court. In the recent case of United States v. Colletti, 2 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 781, decided after the Roviaro case, the Court held that the government's failure to identify the so-called 'special employee'......
-
Vick v. Cochran
...in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility. (347 U.S. at 65, 74 S.Ct. at 356). See also United States v. Colletti, 245 F.2d 781 (2nd Cir. 1957). Dr. Frederick's deposition as to his opinion of the extent, character and duration of Cochran's injury should not hav......