United States v. Mura, 71
| Decision Date | 23 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 71,Docket 22126.,71 |
| Citation | 191 F.2d 886 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MURA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Herbert Zelenko and Richard C. Machcinski, New York City, attorneys and counsel for Jack Mura, defendant-appellant.
Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty., New York City, for the United States, plaintiff-appellee; Stanley D. Robinson, David S. Carton and Robert Martin, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
Count one of the indictment charged Mura and Kramer with transporting a Mercury coupe from the City of New York to Jersey City, New Jersey, knowing it to have been stolen. Count two charged Mura and Kramer with transporting an Oldsmobile from the City of New York to Jersey City, New Jersey, knowing it to have been stolen. The fifth count charged Mura, Kramer, Pollack and Teutschenbach with conspiring to transport motor vehicles knowing them to have been stolen from New York City to Jersey City with the purpose of selling and disposing of them, and alleged various overt acts performed by them or some of them in the course of the conspiracy.
Pollack testified that he received from Mura and Kramer in New Jersey the cars mentioned in the first two counts and that he paid them therefor. Kramer testified without however identifying the particular cars mentioned in counts one and two that he drove one or two cars from New York to Jersey City in company with Mura, claiming, however, that those particular cars were not stolen. There was also testimony that Mura, Kramer, Pollack and Teutschenbach had previously met in New York City and agreed to sell and deliver stolen cars in New Jersey. Under the circumstances there would seem to be no doubt, in view of the ample proof that the cars covered by the indictment had actually been stolen from the true owners, that the convictions were supported by the evidence. Kramer, Teutschenbach and Pollack all pleaded guilty. Mura, while denying that he had transported or that he had conspired to transport stolen cars, denials which the jury did not credit, claimed that he did not have a fair trial because the court charged: "The automobiles that the Government believes have been identified all crossed the border between New York and New Jersey * * *" Such a charge Mura says was equivalent to directing a verdict of guilty against him. But the judge nowhere told the jury that Mura...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. England
...United States, 289 U.S. 466, 53 S.Ct. 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933). 15 See cases cited in note 14, supra. 16 See, e.g., United States v. Mura, 191 F. 2d 886 (2d Cir. 1951); United States v. Rainone, 192 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1951); Nordgren v. United States, 181 F.2d 718, 12 Alaska 671 (9th Cir. 1......
-
Brown v. United States
...fact by the trial court in a criminal case, where the evidence is undisputed. Such a determination was given approval in United States v. Mura, 2 Cir., 191 F.2d 886. This was a prosecution for transporting stolen cars in interstate commerce. The trial court instructed the jury: "The automob......
-
Schwachter v. United States, 12950.
...been established where the fact is not made an issue by the defendant and is shown beyond controversy by the evidence. United States v. Mura, 2 Cir., 191 F.2d 886; Nordgren v. United States, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 718, 721; United States v. Jonikas, 7 Cir., 197 F.2d 675, 679; Wellman v. United St......
-
United States v. Salliey
...Cir. 1956); United States v. Jonikas, 197 F.2d 675 (7 Cir. 1952); United States v. Rainone, 192 F.2d 860 (2 Cir. 1951); United States v. Mura, 191 F.2d 886 (2 Cir. 1951). Appellant makes other objections to the Court's instructions which do not require individual exposition. It is sufficien......