United States v. Greenberg, No. 18021.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 419 F.2d 808 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Harry GREENBERG, Dominic Mattia, Nick Pannarella, Ernest Paul, Alfred Sireci, and Hirschel Weisbord, aka Hirschel Washbord, Alfred Sireci, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 18021. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1969 |
419 F.2d 808 (1969)
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Harry GREENBERG, Dominic Mattia, Nick Pannarella, Ernest Paul, Alfred Sireci, and Hirschel Weisbord, aka Hirschel Washbord, Alfred Sireci, Appellant.
No. 18021.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued December 1, 1969.
Decided December 30, 1969.
Alfred J. DiBona, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.
Victor Wright, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Louis C. Bechtle, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GANEY, SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was one of six men indicted for aiding and abetting in the concealment of corporate assets in contemplation of a bankruptcy proceeding. Following a successful motion for a severance, appellant's counsel appeared before the district court on March 13, 1969, and requested that the trial be continued because of counsel's impending appointment to the state bench in Pennsylvania. On counsel's advice that his associate could assume the defense within "a month to six weeks," the court continued the case to May 5, 1969.
On the day set for trial, the associate appeared and requested a second continuance. After extended argument the motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial and conviction by a jury three days later. Appellant contends that he was denied due process by the refusal of a second continuance. We disagree.
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that "the matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge," and that "a denial of a continuance * * * so arbitrary as to violate due process * * * must be found in the circumstances present in every case." Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 849, 11 L.Ed. 2d 921 (1963). We have carefully examined the circumstances present here and have concluded that, having afforded counsel ample opportunity to prepare the defense, the district court acted properly in refusing another delay. As was noted in United States ex rel. Carey v. Rundle, 409 F.2d 1210 (3 Cir. 1969): "What is demanded here is the exercise of judicial discretion in the exquisite sense." We detect no abuse of that discretion here.
Appellant also asserts error in the introduction of the testimony of the witness Scolnick who was then under state indictment for subornation of perjury. It is appellant's position that Pennsylvania law, 18 P.S. § 4322, renders a perjurer incompetent to testify in judicial proceedings and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kenny, No. 71-1886 to 71-1890.
...F.2d 1226 question. The bounds of such cross examination was a matter for the discretion of the trial court. United States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1971). No abuse of that discretion appears in this D. The Court's Refusal to Recall a Government Witness Appellant Murphy contends t......
-
U.S. v. Belt, Nos. 72-1887
...offered is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. This is the approach taken in a majority of the circuits. United States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1969); United States v. Hildreth, 387 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1967); United States v. Allison, 414 F.2d 407, 411 (9th Cir. 1969); United St......
-
People v. Jackson, No. 9
...Third Circuits appear to have adopted the same rule (United States v. Johnson, 412 F.2d 753, 756 (CA 1, 1969); United States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808, 809 (CA 3, 1969)), and the last expression from the Seventh Circuit is in accord. United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 677 (CA 7, The E......
-
People v. Farrar, Docket No. 10532
...(CA 1, 1969), 412 F.2d 753, 756; United States v. Palumbo (CA 2, 1968), 401 F.2d 270, 273; United States v. Greenberg (CA 3, 1969), 419 F.2d 808, 809; United States v. Hildreth (CA 4, 1967), 387 F.2d 328, 329; United States v. Vigo (CA 5, 1970), 435 F.2d 1347; United States v. Allison (CA 9......
-
United States v. Kenny, No. 71-1886 to 71-1890.
...F.2d 1226 question. The bounds of such cross examination was a matter for the discretion of the trial court. United States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1971). No abuse of that discretion appears in this D. The Court's Refusal to Recall a Government Witness Appellant Murphy contends t......
-
U.S. v. Belt, Nos. 72-1887
...offered is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. This is the approach taken in a majority of the circuits. United States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1969); United States v. Hildreth, 387 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1967); United States v. Allison, 414 F.2d 407, 411 (9th Cir. 1969); United St......
-
People v. Jackson, No. 9
...Third Circuits appear to have adopted the same rule (United States v. Johnson, 412 F.2d 753, 756 (CA 1, 1969); United States v. Greenberg, 419 F.2d 808, 809 (CA 3, 1969)), and the last expression from the Seventh Circuit is in accord. United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670, 677 (CA 7, The E......
-
People v. Farrar, Docket No. 10532
...(CA 1, 1969), 412 F.2d 753, 756; United States v. Palumbo (CA 2, 1968), 401 F.2d 270, 273; United States v. Greenberg (CA 3, 1969), 419 F.2d 808, 809; United States v. Hildreth (CA 4, 1967), 387 F.2d 328, 329; United States v. Vigo (CA 5, 1970), 435 F.2d 1347; United States v. Allison (CA 9......