United States v. Harry Riccobene Harry Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586 (3d Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Harry Riccobene Harry Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586 (3d Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Kubini, 19 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D. Pa. 2014)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 587 prosecutor told grand jury that a crucial witness would not testify because he feared the defendants who were “connected with organized crime and could harm him9 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Kubini, 19 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D. Pa. 2014).published
    The Court of Appeals noted that it had “condemned as improper” the following prosecutorial actions: threats to a grand jury witness and descriptions of the witness as a “racketeer” and “thief,” United States v. Bruzgo, 373 F.2d 383, 386 (3…
  • United States v. Leonard L. Martino, 825 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1987).published
    We have condemned as improper a prosecutor’s threats to a grand jury witness and his description of the witness as a “thief” and a “racketeer”, United States v. Bruzgo, 373 F.2d 383, 386 (3d Cir.1967); a prosecutor’s explanation to the gra…
  • Commonwealth v. Saya, 440 N.E.2d 1288 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).published 2 cites
    The language of the DiGregorio case, at 1189, would support treating as not significant Baldinelli's testimony about being assaulted two weeks after the robbery. [6] See for cases (in addition to the DiGregorio case) denying dismissal base…
  • United States v. Abrams, 539 F. Supp. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).published
    See, e.g., United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856, 887-8 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1120 , 95 S.Ct. 802 , 42 L.Ed.2d 820 (1975); United States v. Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586, 587 (3d Cir. 1971).
  • United States v. Grubb, 513 F. Supp. 745 (E.D. Pa. 1981).published
    First, dismissal of the indictment is proper where the defendant can show that prosecutorial misconduct has caused him “actual prejudice.” United States v. Serubo, 604 F.2d 807, 817 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586,…
  • State v. Paulsen, 286 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa 1979).published 2 cites
    United States v. Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586, 587 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Narciso, 446 F.Supp. 252, 296 (E.D.Mich.1977); Coleman v. State, 553 P.2d 40, 47-52 (Alaska 1976); State v. Superior Court, 119 Ariz. 286, 288-89 , 580 P.2d 747…
  • United States v. Harvey Birdman, United States of Am. v. William Richman, 602 F.2d 547 (3d Cir. 1979).published
    See, e. g., United States v. Lardieri, 506 F.2d 319, 323 (3d Cir. 1974); United States v. Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586, 587 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Bruzgo, 373 F.2d 383, 387 (3d Cir. 1967). 39 .
  • United States v. Caesar, 368 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Wis. 1973).published
    United States v. Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586, 587 (3rd Cir. 1971).
  • United States v. Lawson, 502 F. Supp. 158 (D. Md. 1980).published
    (prosecutor told grand jury that a crucial witness would not testify because he feared the defendants who were “connected with organized crime and could harm him)
Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Harry RICCOBENE Et Al. Harry Riccobene, Appellant
71-1411.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 17, 1971.
Published opinion
451 F.2d 586
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7057
Robert F. Simone, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., Ronald G. Scheraga, Dept, of Justice, Crim. Div., Appellate Section, Washington, D. C. (Roger A. Pauley, Colleen Kollar, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis C. Bechtle, U. S. Atty., Richard T. Spriggs, Sp. Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Aldisert, Gibbons, Per Curiam, Rosenn.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of his convictions for conspiracy and interstate transportation and possession of a stolen security in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314, 2315. Although he assigns a number of errors, only one merits discussion.

During the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor informed the grand jurors that they would not hear testimony from a key government informer because “he would be putting himself in danger in coming to Philadelphia, because the proposed defendants in this case, if you see fit to indict, are connected with organized crime and could harm him.” Appellant claims this remark was inflammatory and prejudicial, and that the indictment returned by the grand jury was, therefore, infirm.

We view as improper prosecutor’s comment connecting appellant with organized crime. However, we find the impropriety not to be of constitutional dimension nor serious enough to invalidate the indictment. United States v. Bruzgo, 373 F.2d 383, 387 (3d Cir. 1967). Furthermore, appellant’s reliance on United States v. Hayward, 136 U.S.App. D.C. 300, 420 F.2d 142 (1969), is wholly misplaced. Appellant ignores the fact that Hayward dealt with the propriety of challenged jury instructions, and the court did not base its reversal on any allegedly prejudicial statement. 420 F.2d at 147.

Here, there was before the grand jury an abundance of competent evidence supporting this indictment. As in Bruzgo, supra, “we are not confronted with a situation where the votes of the grand jurors were necessarily based on their bias resulting from the prosecutors’ remarks.” 373 F.2d at 386. We 'hold that the grand jury proceedings contained no prejudicial error.

We have examined appellant’s other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.