U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1960

United States v. Catalano

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided May 16, 1960

281 F.2d 184 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Charles Catalano, pro se; argued by Edward Q. Carr, Jr., New York City., Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Margaret E. Millus, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Barthelmio Dalli v. United States (2d Cir. 1974)
United States v. Morris Thomas (6th Cir. 1961)
United States v. Charles Catalano (2d Cir. 1960)
United States v. Gonzalez (District Court, S.D. New York 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Defendant complains because the district judge failed to accord him a hearing on his claims of improper attendance of the prosecutor in the jury room during their deliberations. But he relies only on hearsay statements attributed to a *185deputy marshal whom he cannot now name or identify. And the claimed extraordinary malfeasance is specifically and convincingly answered by the affidavit of the public official accused. We think this presents only “incredible hearsay statements” not requiring to be dignified by a hearing, Johnson v. United States, 6 Cir., 239 F.2d 698, 699, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 940, 77 S.Ct. 1404, 1 L.Ed.2d 1539; and we are content to affirm on the reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Bruchhausen.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.