United States v. Stromberg
Decision Date | 23 December 1959 |
Citation | 179 F. Supp. 278 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Harry STROMBERG and Henry Teitelbaum, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., New York City, for plaintiff; Herbert F. Roth, Asst. U. S. Atty., Astoria, N. Y., of counsel.
Moses Polakoff, New York City, for defendant Stromberg.
On March 18, 1958 movants Stromberg and Teitelbaum were found guilty, with others, of having conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 212 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174. Sentences were imposed on April 23, 1958. On June 15, 1959 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed movants' sentences, United States v. Stromberg, 1959, 268 F.2d 256, and the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari on October 22, 1959. 361 U.S. 863, 80 S.Ct. 123.
Defendants Stromberg and Teitelbaum have now moved, pursuant to Rules 33 and 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., for an order granting them a new trial or reducing their sentences.
In support of these motions the defendants submitted a report of one Lloyd B. Furr, who conducted a polygraph (lie detector) test on defendant Stromberg on October 7, 1959. As part of his report Mr. Furr submitted his conclusions, the last of which was:
"He Stromberg was not involved in any type or kind of a conspiracy with persons named in the indictment."
It is this report that the defendants rely upon as the "newly discovered evidence" necessary in order to render their Rule 33 motion timely.
The criteria which must be met in order for a new trial to be ordered on the basis of newly discovered evidence are well settled. In United States v. On Lee, 2 Cir., 1953, 201 F.2d 722, 723-724, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 936, 73 S.Ct. 798, 97 L.Ed. 1364, it was said:
(Citations omitted.)
It is the general rule that before a motion of this type may be granted, five criteria must be met: (1) the evidence must in fact be newly discovered, i. e., discovered since the trial; (2) facts must be alleged from which the Court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the evidence relied upon must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) it must be material to the issues involved; and (5) it must be such, and of such nature, as that on a new trial the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal. United States v. On Lee, supra, 201 F.2d at page 723, note 3; United States v. Hiss, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1952, 107 F.Supp. 128, 136.
Certainly, the second criterion noted above has not been met. No diligence has been shown.
Furthermore, the polygraph test report could not possibly produce a different result at a new trial, for clearly it would not be admissible. In no case has such evidence been admitted at a trial in a Federal court, and the state courts have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Miles
...relates to an understanding entered into between a Government agent and the witness, it would be admissible"]; United States v. Stromberg (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 179 F.Supp. 278, 279-280 ["Furthermore, the polygraph test report could not possibly produce a different result at a new trial, for clear......
-
State v. Brown
...We certainly agree with Judge Irving Kaufman's eloquent statement supporting this position in excluding polygraph in United States v. Stromberg, 179 F.Supp. 278 (S.D.N.Y.), reversed in part on other grounds 268 F.2d 256 (2nd " * * * The most important function served by a jury is in bringin......
-
State v. Walker
...and heard all the evidence on the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Alexander , 526 F.2d at 168-69 (quoting United States v. Stromberg , 179 F.Supp. 278, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) ); see also United States v. DeBetham , 348 F.Supp. 1377, 1390-91 (S.D. Cal.), aff’d , 470 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1972)......
-
People v. Barbara
...the problem by maintaining faith in the intelligence of the modern jury. Judge Kaufman, on the other hand, in United States v. Stromberg, 179 F.Supp. 278, 280 (S.D.N.Y.1959), felt admissibility of such evidence would be tantamount to overturning the jury system."The most important function ......
-
Julie A. Seaman, Black Boxes
...cases at law as well as in criminal cases. Dimick, 293 U.S. at 485-86 (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Stromberg, 179 F. Supp. 278, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) ("The most important function served by a jury is in bringing its accumulated experience to bear upon witnesses test......