Moreover, the trial court has a wide discretion over what evidence may or may not be presented on rebuttal. United States v. Trapnell, 495 F.2d 22, 25 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 419 U.S. 851, 95 S.Ct. 93, 42 L.Ed.2d 82 (1974); United States v. Pomares, 499 F.2d 1220, 1223 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 419 U.S. 1032, 95 S.Ct. 514, 42 L.Ed.2d 307 (1974); United States v. Lieblich, 246 F.2d 890, 895 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 355 U.S. 896, 78 S.Ct. 271, 2 L.Ed.2d 194 (1957). The appellant's principal attack against the rebuttal is directed at Agent DiGravio's statement, above quoted, concerning the nature and terms of the understanding between Nussen and him, on which they shook hands.

Although Padilla had already testified on direct examination that the appellant had claimed that he could avoid punishment by feigning insanity, the trial judge had "wide discretion in permitting the introduction of evidence in rebuttal which might well have been brought out in the Government's case in chief." United States v. Lieblich, 246 F.2d 890, 895 (2 Cir. 1957). Since defense counsel had attempted to impeach Padilla's credibility on cross-examination and to introduce evidence establishing Trapnell's insanity, it was not improper for the court to permit the government to introduce evidence in rebuttal tending to corroborate Padilla's testimony.

We believe and conclude that the admission of the documentary evidence by the District Judge, charged as erroneous, did not visit any prejudice upon the appellants, nor "affect substantial rights" of the appellants. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.; Gordon v. United States (C.A. 6), 164 F.2d 855, cert. den. 333 U.S. 862, 68 S.Ct. 741, 92 L.Ed. 1141; National Labor Relations Board v. Sharples Chemicals (C.A. 6), 209 F.2d 645; United States v. Lieblich (C.A. 2), 246 F.2d 890, cert. den. 355 U.S. 896, 78 S.Ct. 271, 2 L.Ed.2d 194; United States v. Bodnar (C.A.6), 248 F.2d 481. 6.

We do not see that that discretion was abused, and we think what the judge did here is supported by authority. See People v. Avery, 35 Cal.2d 487, 218 P.2d 527 (1950); 6 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1869, 1873 (3d ed. 1940); cf. United States v. Lieblich, 246 F.2d 890, 895 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 896, 78 S.Ct. 271, 2 L.Ed.2d 194 (1957); Samish v. United States, 223 F.2d 358, 365 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 848, 76 S.Ct. 85, 100 L.Ed. 755 (1955). The final attack upon this grand jury testimony by the appellant is that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in its reception.

These trial situations must be dealt with in each case as they occur in the posture of that particular case, and we find no abuse of discretion here. See Goldsby v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 70, 74, 16 S.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 343; United States v. Lieblich, 2 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 890, 895, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 896, 78 S.Ct. 271, 2 L.Ed.2d 194; Duke v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 721, 729, certiorari denied 357 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 1361, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365; United States v. Montgomery, 3 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 151, 153, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 681, 62 S.Ct. 1268, 86 L.Ed. 1754. Appellant presents a more difficult question by maintaining that inasmuch as the heroin was illegally seized it was not only inadmissible against May Moy but also against the two remaining defendants. At a previous and abortive trial of this same case, Judge Palmieri held that, under the doctrine of Miller v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332, the heroin had been obtained from May Moy's apartment by an illegal search and seizure.

The Second Circuit referred to § 95a as part of the Gold Act. United States v. Lieblich, 246 F.2d 890, 892 (2d Cir. 1957). As originally enacted, the statute also applied during a period of national emergency as declared by the President.

The order of proof lies within the sound discretion of the court. United States v. Stoehr, supra, 100 F. Supp. at page 159. As to rebuttal, see United States v. Montgomery, 3 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 151, 153; United States v. Maggio, 3 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 155, 158; Goldsby v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 70, 74, 16 S.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 343; United States v. Lieblich, 2 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 890, 895; VI Wigmore, op. cit. supra, § 1873, pp. 510, 517. Defense counsel on cross examination attempted to show services were actually performed.