Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America Ex Rel. David Coleman, Petitioner-appellant, v. Wilfred L. Denno and Edward S. Silver, Respondents-appellees
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 330 F.2d 441
Argued March 12, 1964 Decided April 6, 1964 Certiorari Denied June 22, 1964 See 84 S.Ct. 1938
Jack L. Kroner, New York City (Stanley J. Levy, Frederick C. Stern and Martin Garbus, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.
William I. Siegel, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kings County, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Kings County, and Mortimer Sattler, New York City, on the brief), for respondents-appellees.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge, and LEVET,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
It was well within the province of the New York Courts to determine whether the prosecutor's comments in summation, taken in the light of defense counsel's argument and the careful and categorical instructions of the trial judge, were so prejudicial to the defendant as to require a new trial of the charges which resulted in his conviction for murder in Kings County in 1960. For the reasons given by Judge Bryan in his detailed and exhaustive opinion reported at 223 F.Supp. 938, S.D.N.Y. (1963) we are convinced that the defendant was not deprived of any Constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The mandate shall issue in five days.