United States v. Nicholas Vowteras & Nestor Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Nicholas Vowteras & Nestor Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Simels (ca2, 2015-12-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Simels
2d Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Evidence is not considered “new” if the defendant was aware of it prior to trial, see United States v. Volateras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.1974), or it “could have been discovered by the defense before or during trial,” United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307, 322 (2d Cir.1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Quail v. Farrell
S.D.N.Y. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Vamos, 797 F.2d at 1150 ; United States v. Oliver, 626 F.2d 254, 258-59 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gabb
unknown court · 2003 · confidence medium
Appellant seeks a remand to the district court to conduct the competency hearing and, then, re-consider his motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33. 2 It is the settled law of this circuit that •with regard to the threshold “reasonable cause” finding for § 4241 purposes, “deference is owed to the district court’s determinations based on observation of the defendant during the proceedings.” Vamos, 797 F.2d at 1150 (citing Oliver, 626 F.2d at 258-59 ; United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Blohm
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See United States v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 403-04 (10th Cir. 1977); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Isaacson
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · confidence medium
See Wheat, 486 U.S. at 161-62 , 108 S.Ct. at 1698-99 ; United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.) (waiver may be repudiated through a credible showing of some real conflict of interest), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harry Nicks v. United States
2d Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Saddler v. United States, 531 F.2d 83, 86 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 4244 to require a competency hearing upon reasonable grounds for doubt); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wheat v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1988 · confidence medium
Tonaldi v. Elrod, 716 F. 2d 431, 436-437 (CA7 1983); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F. 2d 1210, 1211 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1069 (1974); see also Glasser, supra, at 70 ("To preserve the protection of the Bill of Rights for hard-pressed defendants, we indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental rights").
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Victoria Vamos
2d Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Oliver, supra, 626 F.2d at 258-59 ; United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jessie Oliver and Gregory Cooper
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See also United States v. Hall, 523 F.2d 665, 667 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); Zovluck v. United States, 448 F.2d 339, 342-43 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1043 , 92 S.Ct. 1327 , 31 L.Ed.2d 585 (1972); Mirra v. United States, 379 F.2d 782, 787 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1022 , 88 S.Ct. 593 , 19 L.Ed.2d 667 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Samuel Longee, United States of America v. James Edward Chaser
9th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
We are, of course, aware of the necessity to accommodate the rights of defendants to be represented by counsel of their own choice, 7 particularly here since we are dealing with retained defense counsel, United States v. Weiner, 578 F.2d 757, 773-74 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 981 , 99 S.Ct. 568 , 58 L.Ed.2d 651 (1978); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. Alberti, 470 F.2d 878, 881-82 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919 , 93 S.Ct. 1557 , 36 L.Ed.2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holloway v. Arkansas (2×)
SCOTUS · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. Mari, , . . 526 F. 2d [117,] 119 [(CA2 1975)]; United States v. Vowteras, 500 F. 2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1069 . . . (1974); United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F. 2d 274, 281 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Lovano, 420 F. 2d 769, 773 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1071 .. . (1970).
examined Cited as authority (rule) George Kaplan v. Roy Bombard, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent (4×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
It is settled in this Circuit that some specific instance of prejudice, some real conflict of interest, resulting from a joint representation must be shown to exist before it can be said that an appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel.” Accord, United States v. Mari, 526 F.2d 117, 119 (2 Cir. 1975); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 (1974); United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F,2d 274, 281 (2 Cir. 1973); United States v. Lovano, 420 F.2d 769, 773 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1071 (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yanni v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
See United States v. Carrigan, 543 F.2d 1053, 1055-56 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 448, 452-53 (2d Cir. 1973). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Thomas Allen
10th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Passero, 290 F.2d 238, 244 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 819 , 82 S.Ct. 36 , 7 L.Ed.2d 25 ; United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaplan v. Bombard
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
It has generally been held that a defendant, to establish a Sixth Amendment claim, must demonstrate “some specific instance of prejudice, some real conflict of interest, resulting from a joint representation.” United States v. Carrigan, supra; United States v. Mari, 526 F.2d 117, 119 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 281 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Lovano, 420 F.2d 769, 773 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1071 , 90 S.Ct. 1515 , 25 L.E…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard Patrick Carrigan and Robert Edward White (2×)
2d Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
United States v. Mari,supra, 526 F.2d at 119 ; United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 281 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Lovano, 420 F.2d 769, 773 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1071 , 90 S.Ct. 1515 , 25 L.Ed.2d 694 (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard Mari (2×)
2d Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 281 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Alberti, 470 F.2d 878, 881 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919 , 93 S.Ct. 1557 , 36 L.Ed.2d 311 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Morris Hall
2d Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2 Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 (1975); Zovluck v. United States, 448 F.2d 339, 342-43 (2 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1043 (1972); Mirra v. United States, 379 F.2d 782 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1022 (1967).
cited Cited "see" Oddy v. Gonyea
N.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir. 1974); see also Francis S. v. Stone, 221 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.2000).
cited Cited "see" Lopez v. Walker
S.D.N.Y. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Vowteras (2d Cir.1974), 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 .
discussed Cited "see" Edward W. Newfield v. United States
2d Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
United States v. Hall, 523 F.2d 665, 667 (2d Cir. 1975); see United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 , 95 S.Ct. 656 , 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974); United States v. Marshall, supra, 458 F.2d at 450 ; Zovluck v. United States, 448 F.2d 339, 342 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1043 , 92 S.Ct. 1327 , 31 L.Ed.2d 585 (1972).
cited Cited "see" Hill v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Vowteras, 500 F. 2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. den. 419 U. S. 1069 ; United States v. Fountain, 449 F. 2d 629 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 405 U. S. 929 ; United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Nicholas VOWTERAS and Nestor Vowteras, Appellants
1170, Docket 74-1412.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 18, 1974.
500 F.2d 1210
1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556
Jacob P. Lefkowitz, New York City (Theodore Krieger, New York City, on the brief), for appellants., Paul B. Bergman, Asst. U. S. Atty. (David G. Trager, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Raymond J. Dearie, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Moore, Feinberg, Palmieri.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The alleged errors stem from two essential claims: first, that the joint representation of the two appellant brothers by the same trial attorney was improper and second, that Nestor Vowteras was incompetent to stand trial and that his alleged incompetence should have required a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 and should now require a new trial.

We reject both contentions.

Because of the recently decided case of United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1973), the Government raised both with the court and counsel its concern with the joint representation at trial of the two defendants. The matter was carefully examined by the trial judge prior to trial on two separate occasions [1] and both appellants as well as their attorney uniformly expressed their desire for joint representation by single counsel. [2] Not content with their unequivocal statements on the record, the court conducted in camera proceedings with the same result. The defendants, as well as their attorney, were fully advised of the facts underlying the potential conflict [3] and they cannot now repudiate their choice in the absence of a credible showing of “some specific instance of prejudice, some real conflict of interest, resulting from a joint representation. . . . ” United States v. Lovano, 420 F.2d 769, 773 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1071, 90 S.Ct. 1515, 25 L.Ed.2d 694 (1970). [4]

[*1212] With respect to the matter of the alleged incompetence of Nestor Vowteras, it is of special significance that his exposure to psychiatric treatment over a period of many years was made known to defense counsel by the Government prior to trial. In fact the psychiatrist was interviewed by defense counsel shortly after the indictment was returned. Against this factual background, the district court, in denying a new trial, properly exercised its discretion [5] in refusing to equate the incompetence claim of Nestor Vowteras with “newly discovered evidence.” [6]

With respect to the claim that Nestor Vowteras’ alleged incompetence should have required a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244, it is sufficient to note that the court below had no “reasonable ground” for believing he was incompetent and was, therefore, under no obligation to hold a hearing. [7] The observations of the appellant by the trial court, [8] as well as the appellant’s longstanding and successful contacts with his business, his family and the community, substantially undermine any possible inference that there was reasonable ground to invoke the procedures of 18 U.S.C. § 4244. [9]

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

1

. See United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 448, 452-454 (2d Cir. 1973) ; United States v. Alberti, 470 F.2d 878, 881-882 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1557, 36 L.Ed.2d 311 (1973) ; United States v. Foster, 469 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1972), cited with approval in United States v. Deberry, supra, 487 F.2d at 453-454 n. 6.

2

. See United States v. Sheiner, 410 F.2d 337, 342 (2d Cir. 1969) cited in United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 448, 455 (2d Cir. 1973) (Moore, J., dissenting).

3

. See Morgan v. United States, 396 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1968).

4

. See also United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 448, 452-453 (2d Cir. 1973) ; United States v. Alberti, 470 F.2d 878, 881 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1557, 36 L.Ed.2d 311 (1973). Compare United States v. Paz-Sierra, 367 F.2d 930, 932-933 (2d Cir. 1966), Nicholas Vowteras, who was ultimately acquitted on two counts, claims prejudice in that he would never have gone to trial with his attorney also representing an incompetent. Regardless of the merit of this argument, and accepting, contrary to persuasive reasons for believing otherwise, that prior to the trial he did not know of his brother’s long history of psychiatric treatment, this claim is vitiated in that (a) his attorney knew of that history and (b) in any event some three months before[*1212] trial he was provided with Nestor Vowteras’ post-arrest statement which contained explicit references to his history of treatment. Nestor Vowteras, who never took the stand, apparently makes no claim of prejudice other than to argue that he was incompetent to “waive” separate counsel. See text accompanying note 9, infra. See generally Schwartz, Circumstances Giving Rise to Conflict of Interest Between or Among Criminal Codefendants Precluding Representation by Same Counsel, 34 A.L.R.3d 470 et seq. (1970).

5

. United States v. Silverman, 430 F.2d 108, 119-120 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 953, 91 S.Ct. 1619, 29 L.Ed.2d 123 (1971).

6

. See United States v. Soblen, 203 F.Supp. 542, 565 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff’d, 301 F.2d 236, 242 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 944, 82 S.Ct. 1585, 8 L.Ed.2d 810 (1962); United States v. Passero, 290 F.2d 238, 244 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 819, 82 S.Ct. 36, 7 L.Ed.2d 25 (1961).

7

. United States ex rel. Roth v. Zelker, 455 F.2d 1105, 1108 & n. 2 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 927, 92 S.Ct. 2512, 33 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 435 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967).

8

. Cf. Zovluck v. United States, 448 F.2d 339, 342-343 (2d Cir. 1971); Bell v. United States, 265 F.Supp. 311, 314, 318 (N.D.Miss.1966), aff’d, 375 F.2d 763, 764 (5th Cir. 1967).

9

. This conclusion applies equally to Nestor Vowteras’ claim that he was incompetent to “waive” separate counsel.