United States v. Algranati

7 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Mann

    291 F. Supp. 268 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)   Cited 60 times
    In United States v. Mann, 291 F. Supp. 268, 271 (SD N. Y.) (1968), the court states: "Where delay is as long and as groundless as that revealed here, prejudice may fairly be presumed simply because everyone knows that memories fade, evidence is lost, and the burden of anxiety upon any criminal defendant increases with the passing months and years [Cits.

    The Government suggests, in fact, that we follow the cases where motions like the present one were denied subject to renewal and possibly altered disposition upon the brighter illumination afforded by a trial. E. g., United States v. Gladding, 265 F. Supp. 850 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1965); United States v. Research Foundation, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y. 1957). Cases like those cited involved pretrial motions which were deemed insufficient but possibly capable of being buttressed at trial.

  2. United States v. Delman

    253 F. Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    See generally Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70, 73, 16 S.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 883, 86 S.Ct. 176, 15 L.Ed.2d 123 (1965); Odell v. Burke, 281 F.2d 782, 786 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 875, 81 S.Ct. 119, 5 L.Ed.2d 96 (1960); Barrett v. United States, 270 F.2d 772, 775 (8th Cir. 1959); McDonald v. Hudspeth, 129 F.2d 196, 199 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 665, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 535 (1942); United States ex rel. Boone v. Fay, 231 F. Supp. 387, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 936, 85 S.Ct. 945, 13 L.Ed.2d 823 (1965). See United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116, 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1965); United States v. Brown, 188 F. Supp. 624, 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). Compare United States v. Dillon, 183 F. Supp. 541, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).

  3. United States v. Quinn

    314 F. Supp. 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 122, 86 S.Ct. 773, 777 (1966); see United States v. Scully, 415 F.2d 680, 683 (2d Cir. 1969).Cf. United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).

  4. United States v. Tchack

    296 F. Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)   Cited 3 times
    In United States v. Tchack, 296 F. Supp. 500, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 1969), the court said that "a four and a half year delay is unduly lengthy * * *.

    Under the leading case in this jurisdiction, United States v. Lustman, 258 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 358 U.S. 880, 79 S.Ct. 118, 3 L.Ed.2d 109 (1958), a defendant under the circumstances prevailing here — namely a defendant represented by counsel and suffering no specific or unusual prejudice — waives his Sixth Amendment right unless he requests a speedy trial. It is settled that the Sixth Amendment is a shield to protect the defendant and not a sword which he may use to thwart justice. Lustman, 258 F.2d at 478; accord, United States v. Della Rocca, 388 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1968) vacated on other grounds, 390 U.S. 745, 88 S.Ct. 1443, 20 L.Ed.2d 274 (1968) (5 year delay); United States v. Maxwell, 383 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1967) (5 year delay); United States v. Van Allen, 288 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1961) cert. denied, 368 U.S. 836, 82 S.Ct. 31, 7 L.Ed.2d 37 (1961) (6 year delay); United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) (5 year delay). Compare cases such as United States v. Mann, 291 F. Supp. 268 (S.D.N.Y. 1968); United States v. Roberts, 293 F. Supp. 195 (S.D.N.Y. filed November 4, 1968) or United States v. Richardson, 291 F. Supp. 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), where specific prejudice was shown to have injured defendant in the presentment of his defense.

  5. United States v. Richardson

    291 F. Supp. 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)   Cited 21 times

    This fact is most important to the changed disposition of the motion. Because of the likelihood of new facts and of old facts taking on new significance, a pre-trial motion to dismiss an indictment under Rule 48(b) and the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial provision is often denied with permission to renew it later if a better case of prejudice can be made out. United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1965); United States v. Delman, 253 F. Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); United States v. Gladding, 265 F. Supp. 850 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); United States v. Curry, 278 F. Supp. 508, 512 (N.D.Ill. 1967). This court is of the opinion that leave to renew a motion is not necessary to its renewal under the modern interpretation of "law of the case".

  6. United States v. Kane

    243 F. Supp. 746 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)   Cited 16 times

    United States v. Hunter Pharmacy, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 323, 324-32 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). See also, United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116, 118 (S.D.N.Y. 1965); United States v. Gilbar Pharmacy, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 160, 162 (S.D.N Y 1963). The fact that the indictment survives the attack on this score is not to condone the delay.

  7. Douglas v. United States

    240 F. Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    See, e. g., United States v. Lustman, 258 F.2d 475, 478 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 880, 79 S.Ct. 119, 3 L.Ed. 109 (1958). Cf. United States v. Algranati, 239 F. Supp. 116, 239 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1965). McFarlane v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 191, 191-192 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).