United States v. Gernie

Decision Date16 February 1961
Docket NumberNo. 201,Docket 26577.,201
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph GERNIE, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Bella V. Dodd, New York City (Dodd, Cardiello & Blair, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Gerald E. Paley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, David R. Hyde, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before CLARK, MAGRUDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

LEONARD P. MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant appeals from the denial of his motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to set aside the judgment of conviction upon the ground that there was such a denial of constitutional rights as to constitute a denial of a fair trial. Appellant claims that a hearing should have been granted because there were material and substantial issues of fact. The trial court concluded that a hearing was not required because an inspection of the court records disclosed that appellant's basic rights received full protection. This conclusion is amply supported by the record.

Appellant was entitled to a hearing "Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief" (28 U.S.C.A. § 2255). However, a Section 2255 proceeding cannot be used to seek reversal because of alleged trial errors, particularly where, as here, these alleged errors were, or could have been, raised on the appeal from the conviction.

The facts upon which the conviction was based are fully set forth in this court's opinion on the appeal (United States v. Gernie, 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 664, certiorari denied 1958, 356 U.S. 968, 78 S.Ct. 1006, 2 L.Ed.2d 1073). That opinion also specifically considered and decided adversely to appellant the claim of deprivation of due process because of the refusal of the witness Harrell to answer certain cross-examination questions upon the ground of his Fifth Amendment privilege (252 F.2d 664, at pages 669-670).

Appellant also asserts that reversible prejudice resulted from the joint trial with Ogull. The same arguments can be advanced in every multiple defendant case. Usually defendants jointly indicted are tried together, although the trial court has broad discretion in the matter. This point could have been raised on the original appeal. Nor is there any evidence that the trial court was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • United States v. Gernie
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 8, 1964
    ...the sentence imposed. Judge Palmieri denied that motion on July 15, 1960. His decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on February 16, 1961, 287 F.2d 637, and certiorari was denied, 368 U.S. 854, 82 S.Ct. 91, 7 L.Ed.2d 52 On December 18, 1961, petitioner moved pursuant to Rule 35, F.R.......
  • United States v. Soblen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 3, 1961
    ......183, 197, 198 "Petitioner is in effect arguing that on a second go-round, he would do much better. Perhaps so. * * * nowhere in the record is there any indication that petitioner sought to examine police reports pertaining to himself, * * *."; .         Cf. United States v. Gernie (2d Cir. 1958) 252 F.2d 664, cert. denied 356 U.S. 968, 78 S.Ct. 1006, 2 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1958), rehearing denied, 2 Cir., 287 F. 2d 637 (1961) (Jacob W. Friedman, the attorney of record in the case at bar, was the attorney for the defendants-appellants) Chief Judge Lumbard said (252 F.2d at 668): "A ......
  • United States v. Sahabir
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • July 26, 2012
    ...hearing will not be justified unless there is “some promise at least of helpful testimony hitherto unknown....” United States v. Gernie, 287 F.2d 637, 638 (2d Cir.1961). The papers on this motion have not revealed a genuine issue of material fact. Petitioners' ineffective assistance of coun......
  • Campbell v. United States, 14863.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • February 11, 1966
    ...of unusual circumstances, serve as a substitute for an appeal. United States v. Jonikas, 197 F.2d 675 (7th Cir. 1952); United States v. Gernie, 287 F.2d 637 (2d Cir. 1961). The petitioner's next contention relates to the testimony of a Government agent about conversations with one of petiti......
  • 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