United States v. Forzano, 289

Decision Date17 July 1951
Docket NumberDocket 22027.,No. 289,289
Citation190 F.2d 687
PartiesUNITED STATES v. FORZANO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Santangelo & Santangelo, New York City, Alfred E. Santangelo, New York City, of counsel, for defendant-appellant.

Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City, Bruno Schachner, Robert Rubinger and Joseph N. Friedman, Assts. U. S. Atty., all of New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SWAN, Chief Judge, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and L. HAND, Circuit Judges.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, Dante Forzano, was convicted at a trial before a jury and Waring, J., upon an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 472 which contained two counts for passing at New Rochelle, New York, with intent to defraud, counterfeit notes of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, to wit: a $20 note on November 22, 1948, and a $10 note on December 6, 1948. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. He did not take the stand at the trial.

The appellant now appeals from the judgment of conviction on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he passed either note and that if he in fact passed them he did not do so with the knowledge that they were counterfeit. He also claims reversible error in the admission of certain evidence and in a denial of his motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence.

The facts were as follows: On the morning of November 22, 1948, Forzano entered a liquor store operated by one Wilson and purchased a pint of whiskey paying for it with a $20 note. One Russell was in the store at the time but left before payment was made by Forzano. As Forzano left the store, he looked back several times. Wilson became suspicious and set off for a bank with the note he had received, stopping en route to describe the circumstances to one Caputo, a friend who ran a gas station. The note proved to be counterfeit. On January 7, 1949, a Secret Service Agent called on Wilson and showed him various photographs. Wilson picked out a picture of Forzano as that of the man who had passed the note. The agent evidently knew that Forzano was scheduled to appear at the local police station on January 19, 1949, to answer a charge of driving without a license. He took Wilson and Russell with him to the station on that day and Wilson recognized Forzano outside the building. As soon as Forzano saw Wilson he disappeared. Forzano's wife testified that he was then at home and not at the station. In April 1949 Forzano and a friend called on Wilson in his store. Wilson claims he there recognized Forzano again, but the friend denied this.

On the evening of December 6, 1948, in the same town, Forzano purchased some gasoline at a station operated by one Certo paying for it with a $10 note. Certo became suspicious and jotted down the license number of the car as it drove away. It belonged to Mrs. Forzano. The next day when he turned in his receipts at a bank, the bank teller told Certo that one $10 note was a counterfeit. Certo testified that there was only one $10 note among the receipts, the teller remembered more than one. Both notes were well executed counterfeits.

The above recital shows that there was clearly enough evidence on which a jury could find that Forzano was the person who passed the counterfeits in question. It was for the jury to resolve any conflicts in the testimony and they evidently chose to believe the government's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • United States v. Soblen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 3, 1961
    ...of discretion in passing upon petitioner's motion.". 12 United States v. Costello (2d Cir. 1958) 255 F.2d 876, 879; United States v. Forzano (2d Cir. 1951) 190 F.2d 687, 689 "insufficient showing of due diligence on the part of the United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy (1956) 351 U.S. 454, 4......
  • Com. v. Floyd
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • September 25, 1985
    ...may have intervened to create a fancied recognition in the witness' mind. (People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 559-560 ; United States v. Forzano, 190 F.2d 687, 689; see People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 588 ; People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226 ; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940),......
  • Bedford v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 1982
    ...to create a fancied recognition in the witness' mind. (People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 559-560 (191 P.2d 1); United States v. Forzano, (2 Cir.), 190 F.2d 687, 689; see People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 588 (295 P.2d 525); People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226 (259 P.2d 476); 4 Wi......
  • Orr v. Schaeffer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 23, 1978
    ...States v. De Sena, 490 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Sacasas, 381 F.2d 451, 454 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Forzano, 190 F.2d 687, 689 (2d Cir. 1951). 11 United States ex rel. Craft v. Lefevre, 432 F.Supp. 93, 96 (S.D.N.Y.1977); see United States v. LaSorsa, 480 F.2d 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT