United States v. Minkoff
| Decision Date | 20 April 1950 |
| Citation | 181 F.2d 538 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MINKOFF et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Gallop, Climenko & Gould, Jesse Climenko, New York City (Martin N. Whyman, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City (John C. Hilly, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Appellants' motion asks that we remand this case to the district court in order that they may there seek a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.1 we should only entertain such a motion in case the district court indicates, after a hearing, that it intends to grant a motion for a new trial.
1 Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 771; Dession, New Rules of Criminal Procedure, 56 Yale L.J. (1947) 197, 232; N. Y. Univ. School of Law Institute-Proceedings, Vol. VI, p. 206.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Munchak
...U.S. 978, 85 S.Ct. 1343, 14 L.Ed.2d 272 (1965); United States v. Smith, 331 F.2d 145 (6th Cir. 1964) (2 cases); United States v. Minkoff, 181 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1950) (per curiam); Rakes v. United States, 163 F.2d 771 (4th Cir. 1947) (per curiam); 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure ......
-
United States v. West, Cr. No. 22230.
...of Criminal Procedure p. 131 (2nd Preliminary Draft). See also Knight v. United States, 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 699; United States v. Minkoff, 2 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 538; Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d This exact question has not been passed upon by the Sixth Circuit Court of......
-
Ashe v. United States
...203; Smith v. Pollin, 1952, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 178, 194 F.2d 349, 350; Knight v. United States, 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 699; United States v. Minkoff, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 538. The denial of the motion pending appeal was procedurally The disposition of a motion for new trial upon newly discovered ......
-
Metcalf v. United States, 11446.
...privilege of its use is not abused." United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 112-113, 66 S.Ct. 464, 467, 90 L.Ed. 562; United States v. Minkoff, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 538; Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d In opposition to appellants' motion the Government has filed certified copies of cr......