United States v. Lieberman
Decision Date | 19 October 1925 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LIEBERMAN et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Ralph C. Greene, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Joseph M. Crooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
Bertha Rembaugh, of New York City, for defendants.
Defendant Lieberman, with two other defendants, was indicted for conspiracy. He pleaded guilty. The other two defendants went to trial, and the jury disagreed. The United States attorney now moves to nolle prosequi the indictment as to the latter two defendants. Lieberman objects, claiming that the government cannot urge that these two defendants are innocent of conspiracy and yet accept Lieberman's plea of guilty and move sentence on him.
It does not follow that the government contends that these two defendants are innocent. The motion to dismiss may be made upon the ground that the evidence against them is weak, that material witnesses left, died, disappeared, or recanted, or that various other considerations have arisen which make further prosecution contrary to the best interests of justice. This defendant urges that he cannot be guilty of conspiracy if his two codefendants are not found guilty also, citing United States v. Hamilton, Fed. Cas. No. 15,288; but that case is direct authority for the proposition that a defendant, A., who is indicted for conspiracy with B., C., and various other persons to the grand jury unknown (as in the case at bar), may be convicted, while B. and C. are acquitted. The court holds in the Hamilton Case, supra:
The defendant Lieberman has pleaded guilty, and cannot be heard on the government's motion as to the other two defendants. That motion is granted.
An indictment duly charging a crime was filed against the defendant Lieberman. He duly pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. United States, Civ. No. B-76-140.
...against a co-defendant does not vitiate a defendant's plea of guilty to that charge. United States v. Fox, supra; United States v. Lieberman, 8 F.2d 318 (E.D.N.Y.1925). The record establishes that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the motion to vacate sentence is denied, an......