United States v. DiMichele, 16280.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 375 F.2d 959 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Adam DiMICHELE, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 16280.,16280. |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1967 |
375 F.2d 959 (1967)
UNITED STATES of America,
v.
Adam DiMICHELE, Appellant.
No. 16280.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1967.
Decided May 3, 1967.
Lester J. Schaffer, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Joseph H. Reiter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of perjury arising out of his testimony while appearing as a witness before a federal grand jury which was investigating suspected violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1952 relating to interstate travel and transportation in aid of racketeering. The indictment of appellant charged that it was material to said investigation that the grand jury should know and be informed with respect to a "crap game which was being conducted on the premises of 1237 South 7th Street, Philadelphia, on Sunday, September 5, 1965, and whether Adam DiMichele had knowledge of any such violation."
On September 5, 1965 Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents, having search, seizure and arrest warrants, raided a gambling game operating at 1237 South 7th Street, Philadelphia, allegedly in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1952, Interstate Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises. During the raid appellant was seen leaving the said place
through a back window which led to a sloping roof. Eventually he worked his way into and through a house on the next street where he was met by F.B.I. Agents. At that time he was fully advised of his right to remain silent and to counsel. Appellant told the Agents he had been in the place when it was raided and described his departure. He was then given a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury fifteen days later. He did appear, was sworn to tell the truth, denied his presence in the gambling place and that he had so admitted to the Agents. He also denied that when he had heard the F.B.I. Agents at the front door of 1237 South 7th Street he left the scene by going through a house on Sheridan Street which was directly behind 1237 South 7th Street. He did not testify at the trial or offer any defense evidence. He was convicted and placed on probationAppellant's entire argument is based upon the theory that the law should be changed to provide that a witness before a grand jury must be warned of his right to counsel and of his right against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mandujano, No. 74-754
...United States v. DiGiovanni, 397 F.2d 409, 412 (CA7 1968); Cargill v. United States, 381 F.2d 849 (CA10 1967); United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959, 960 (CA3 1967). The fact that here the grand jury interrogation had focused on some of respondent's specific activities does not require t......
-
Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Director of Int. Rev., Civ. A. No. 74-2874.
...v. Mandujano, 496 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1974), cert granted, 420 U.S. 989, 95 S.Ct. 1422, 43 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975); United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1967); cf. United States v. Ortega (Ventola), 517 F.2d 1006, 1008-09 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Lardieri, 506 F.2d 319 (3d C......
-
United States ex rel. Buonoraba v. COMMISSIONER OF COR., CITY OF NY, 70 Civ. 3013.
...47 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1931); People v. Ianniello, supra, 21 N.Y.2d at 424, 288 N.Y.S.2d 462, 235 N.E.2d 439. 24 United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1967); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 25 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed. 2d 491 (1968). 26 399 U.S. 66, 90 S......
-
U.S. v. Chevoor, 75--1144
...witness such as was Chevoor when he was subpoenaed 5 is entitled to no warnings of constitutional rights. United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 838, 88 S.Ct. 54, 19 L.Ed.2d 100 (1967). Even if the prosecution and the grand jury fully expect that the witn......
-
State v. Iverson, Nos. 390
...v. Luxenberg, Supra, 374 F.2d 241, 246; United States v. Fruchtman, 282 F.Supp. 534, 536 (D.C.N.D. Ohio 1968); United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959, 960 (C.A.3rd 1967); Robinson v. United States, 401 F.2d 248, 250 (C.A.9th 1968); Beckley v. State, 443 P.2d 51, 54 (Alaska The State's Att......
-
U.S. v. Chevoor, No. 75--1144
...witness such as was Chevoor when he was subpoenaed 5 is entitled to no warnings of constitutional rights. United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 838, 88 S.Ct. 54, 19 L.Ed.2d 100 (1967). Even if the prosecution and the grand jury fully expect that the witn......
-
United States ex rel. Buonoraba v. COMMISSIONER OF COR., CITY OF NY, No. 70 Civ. 3013.
...47 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1931); People v. Ianniello, supra, 21 N.Y.2d at 424, 288 N.Y.S.2d 462, 235 N.E.2d 439. 24 United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1967); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965). 25 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed. 2d 491 (1968). 26 399 U.S. 6......
-
U.S. v. Doss, No. 75-1463
...United States v. DiGiovanni, 397 F.2d 409, 412 (CA7 1968); Cargill v. United States, 381 F.2d 849 (CA10 1967); United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959, 960 (CA3 The fact that here the grand jury interrogation had focused on some of respondent's specific activities does not require that the......