Opposition Brief — Strauss v. United States

Opinions below_----- Licienaigitdeaniiniadibtnimasdlauie: me

; 8 TE A EOE CONS AE CEES” 5

iy Question, presented. ine niennces. 9

Statutes and rule involved__-_---~----- healing . .

Statement ........... cil halite Ae as Riel Ae IS

TID | isiceiinictticinisile cecttichiakaietpicacecontcanig =. a

Comet 35m 5 cin cd ila pica irom” ae

CITATIONS , PI ie

Cases: were .:

. Alkon v. United States, 163. Fed. “a... 13

‘Kaplan v. United States, 7 F. 2d 594, cer-

' tiorari denied, 269 U.S. 582_._____- inn. oe

-Ledet v. United States, 297 F. 2d 737----.- 11

Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1_---- Ail

Strauss v. United States,. 311 F. 2d 926, cer- ° ..

- . tiorari denied, 373 U.S. 910.-=----__- 3°

United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. > i wae

Statutes and Rule: | ) - re :

‘is UBO 198 op 6B + =

ee . MRM OE a 23

Rule 33, F.B.Crim.P..........-.-.-..... 33

238-775—66——-1

a

a ie Sapeeme Gout of the Ue sie

: ES | item - Ooronen Tnx, 1966

ie a Ng. 713. |

FAS ONS i Rosser LL. Smavss, PETITIONER

a Cate : x .

A has |Uxrmp Stares oF Ayonica Eo ora

*

| ON ‘PETITION. FOR A WRIT OF ORRTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF. spSdsrmacat FOR THE FIFTH sax ae

4

iy BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION eee

OPINIONS BELOW.

The opinion i the court of appeals is: sale iite

363 F. 2d 366. (Pet. App. -1=5).-The: opinion of the ~_ |

‘ . eourt of appeals, affir the original conviction | Se

’ - feported at 311 F, 2d 926 (Pet. App. 6-16). Certio-

: . "vari was denied, 373 U.S. 910. The per’ curiam opin-

ion. of the court of- appealg affirming denial of an ~

earlier motion for a new trial on the basis of newly

5 discovered evidence is reported at 837 F. 2d 853 — eae

_ App. 17). age soe : es Po.

The Soa of the edurt of spouts was 5 edie

* on July 21, 1966. A petition for rehearing was denied —

_ on September 22, 1966. ‘The petition for atwrit of

| eertiorari was led ‘on. October th 1M The ie

: | (1) f Be |

&

Bh

sag

- &

A ’

= =

; ' @istion of this Court is - invoked under 38 v. s. ©.

— 1254). Bee oe

| ee: fy) @omerION PRessED, rio Reeliw Pe

* Whether the trial court properly d denied petitionier” -*

| ” second motion for a new trial based on allegedly newiy,

~ discovered | evidence. . games ‘ :

$

neers) ae ‘STATUTES AND RULE INVOLVED 4

ae 418 U.S.C (1958 éd.). 152, at, the time of the: events

Sao here involved, provided pertinently : :

_.. Whoever, while an agent or officer of any. 8;

- person. or corporation, and in contemplation eS

- Of.a bankruptey proceeding by or against such,

_ . \person or, corporation, or with intent to defeat

‘ . the’ bankruptey law, knowingly and fraudu-

‘ Jently transfers or conceals any. of the property ©

pete ot eet of such person or corporation :* * * ~~ ¢

ae Se >. Shall be. fined not More. than. $5,000 or im-

eo | prisoned not more’ thant five years, or both:

at) UBL: 371 provides pertinentiy: oT :

\ 1) MT two “or mote ‘persons’ ¢onspire either to

ss ' ‘eommit any -offerise agaitist the United States,

“or to defrand’the United States, or ary ac coney

. therecf in-any manner or for any purpose, and and

; |. ong cn more of such. persons do, any act.to eitee bs

. | rout vhjeet.of the conspiracy, each shall be, fined,

\ _ not more. than. $10,000 or imprisoned. not more -

ees sere = than ‘ive:-years, or both. |

ee * Rule 33, F.R. Crim, Fry ae aly 3 - 1966, pro-

: Hed ak follows : ‘ 7

Gua The. court may. grant. a new trial, to a defend?

: ny i “ant, if fequired in the interest of justice. If ~~

was by the court without a jury the court

ia] va vaeake the judgment if entered, také addi-

_ tional testimony and = the entry of a new

: motion for a new trial based, on newly discover SM

dence, which denial ‘was upheld by the Fifth | ‘ireuit

art 3 e is

| | judgment.s matin’ ‘tor: sew brad biedon 3

.. the ground of newly: discovered e ME ae ES

- be-:made only before or. within two. y after Breed oo

“, final judgment, but if an appeal is sede, the .

‘court may grant the motion only on remand of Biter

. the case. A-motion for a new trial based on e.

any other grounds shall be made within 5 days Ree

-* after verdiet or finding of guilty or within such

further ‘time as the court nar Re _——e

iedey' —

é

ear sikeuiais min qarteie 3 i :., sania es

" Petitioner seeks review of Bi Metial:2 of ‘his bbe :

G5:

‘on appeal. * Petitioner was convicted on.an indi tment |

in the United States District Court for the Southern - -

District of Florida ‘alleging that he and co-defendant °°

Goodman, in contemplation of the bankruptcy of a : |

corporation of which. they were officers, conspired eet | ay

Be. ‘transfer and conceal assets of that corporation in viola- ‘ae

. tion of 18 U.S.C. 152, 371 (Supp: R. 13-18)? Good-

: Man pleaded. guilty (Pet. App. 6). On February 2... bea =

1962, after-a- jury trial, petitioner was given a sentence : 3

of ‘two yeats, four months in prison and the balance eas 7 A

on probation (Supp. R. 37-38). The conviction was ae

‘affirmed. Strauss v. United ‘States,\ $11. F. a> 926,

certiorari denied, : 373 U.S. 910. %

i Rule 33, as revised slightly, effective July . 196, is set out ie

in the petition (Pet. App. 22). se

* Following the same designation as in thé petition, er ; ee Se

to the record in the present proceeding, and “Supp. R.” to the

_ . fecord at trial. We have also lodged with the Court the record =~

. - of the proceeding on the first motion for new trial based on re

newly discovered evidence, yah is pelt to herein’ as “Od

Supe. i kg < a5

p..

3 -©

e

Po

“Ub: The AOR on. whieh aie Sate was saciiriated: ab

is summarized in the opinion written by the court of.

| appeals in affirming the conviction (Pet. App. 6-14).

© In brief, it showed ‘that in 1956 petitioner and Good-

man, stating ‘that ‘they were sole stockholders of —

Harold Corporation, entered into a, written agree-

ment, dated February 1,. 1956, with one Jeri Bolton by

which she agreed that, fora consideration, she would

allow her name to be used i in corporate transactions.

- The corporation acquired . a. long-term lease on the

_ Cadillac Hotel at Miami Beach and plans were made

for doubling. its size “(Supp.: R. 207, 480). Harold

eaten acquired: funds from a Miami bank -

through a construction loan totaling. $1, 250, 000: and.”

. from other sourees in-1956 and cad Tt was adjudi-

-eated a bankrupt i in June 19

The government’s evidence ; a a number ‘of

transactions by which money. was withdrawn from

the corporation without any apparent consideration, _

‘Some of these . implicated petitioner © directly.” ae: ack’

jee

* Incident to obtaining the loan, the sctipannidies submitted >

copy of the, construction contract, which called for payment of

the $1,250,000 to Cal ‘Ko ores Construction Company, to cover

the entire césts of the job\ (Supp. R. 82-92). The day after

the loan Was, closed, this agreement was superseded by one in ~ ;

which. the construction company agreed to supervise the work

irectly (Supp. R. 93-96).

the special construction account set up by the lending savings and

all on the same day (Supp... Rs 384, 401, 405, 423-424),

eheck. parehle J to ects bore the ‘endorsement “Robert - =

a»,

for a total fee of $50,000; while the corporation assumed the - \

- .. payment of all bui : =

November 15, 1956, the Kovens Company drew $45,000 on

_ Joan company (Supp. R. 96-98), and paid the same amount to 5

- Hatold Corporation, which paid the'same amount to Beritione®

> Wag” ah -

|

£

| - oe \ | meng ce

e

tee a’ fo er manager of ae Cadillac Hotel and

_” president of ld Corporation, testified that he: - .

* ie tise pach some. shosts paral. Js -

Bolton and give the proceeds either to Goodman, to

petitioner, or to wire :themi to the Rhodes Optical

Strauss”, . which a handwriting expert testified at trial was ex- |

ecuted by petitioner (Supp. ER. 401, 405, 466-467 ; Govt. Exh. 52). -

Photocopies were introduced of the eg he, checks, drawn

on Harold Corporation’s account. with the Pan Bank | .

by Robert L. § payable either to himself or to cash and -

', purporting to ~petitioner’s signature both as drawer and:

. endorsee (Supp. R. 271-277): a '

-Sply 25, 1956 (Govt. Exh, 24)...--- — $17, 500

- Sept. 28, 1956, (part of Govt... Exh. 25)...-..-.... 4,000 ©

Oct. 1, 1956 (part of Govt. Exh. 25)___-_____-. ee

_ Oct. 1, 1956 Hid cat dS Waki Se) ;

\ Oct. 17, 1956/ (part of Govt. Exh. 26)~-.--- Lifts = e

“Nov. 4; 1956 (past of Gort. Exh. 96). 7 00°

Nov. 9, 1956 (part of Govt. Exh. 26) ----- Be

"nly 31,-1956 (Govt. Exh. £7). ” en “g2380

“Photocopies were introduced of’ two checks purportedly’ ei

drawn by Jeri Bolton on. the Mércantile National Bank, pay-

: ble to Robert L. Stratee-and.enidorsed “Robert. La Strauss”

(Supp. R. 315-319) : ” , ve

Dec. 10, 1956 (Govt. ‘Exh. $4) paReL ei ” $16,000 ie

Dec. 19, 1956 (Govt. Exh. 35) __ si o. 43500

. Also introduced was a photocopy “3 a check ‘of theecorpo-

ration drawp ‘on the’Miami Beach Firet National Bank, pay:

, able to Robert L. , Strauss and Ray Goodman, dated ‘October :

& Th 1956, in the ‘amount ‘of $25,500 (Supp. R. 401-405; Govt. —

: Exh. 51). The endorsemént of* petitiorer_thereon was | gen-

_ wine in the opinion of the government's Tanawrieng expert

(Supp. R: 466-467).

The Pan ‘American. iii “heidi “i loan of $330,000 to lie

corporation on March 20, 1957, which was paid out by the cor- _

poration on the same day. (Supp. R.-266-270). Included in the

* ‘\payrments was ‘a’ check for’ $111,000, drawn by petitioner, to

Florida International. Corporation, a company: of which peti- .

tioner was treasurer (Supp. R. 158, aa, 6 Govt. Exh. 51).

s

te

xen

: _ Company: in Atlanta. He could ‘int ‘identify these ee

occasions. with: any particular checks Supp. R. R. 213,

Hg 218, 230, 225).-

__ On’ ‘¢ross-efuminiatfon, Low reiterated that be oil

; a he go at" was a $15,000 or above; T treme

t=

er ber that.

check (Supp.. R. 931). On: another occasion he took

: oe

However, he- could: not: tie this | transaction “he. any °

e a sum of money to Goodman's. rouse and there was _

: eat exchange of funds” with ee on the porch EN

| Supp. B.-288).

2. In this secorid motion’ for a new trial,’ ssoldidiaiel :e!

-. Sought to prove:/(a) ‘That the testimony of Jack Low —

ae that he had cashed cheeks involving company funds.

and .given the proceeds to petitioner was perjured ;

H (b) that petitioner’s purported endorsements on fhree

ere forgeries; * and (¢) that petitioner severed

; his relation with, Harold aati on March 20,

vA ‘1957. )

—

rn In a prior paar era petitioner had mae a new trial on’ athe.

_basis of testimony of co-defendant. Goodman before’ the bank-

' yuptcy court that petitioner and his. wife sold all their stock

and pétitioner terminated all his participation in Harold rr ae

Poration on Mareh 14,1957 (2d Supp. R. 2-10). .

‘The cheeks ‘were: . “a3

- Govt. Exh. 51, a company ‘check on the Miami Beach First

‘National Bank, dated October 11, 1956, for $25,500, payable to

Robert Strauss and Gordan, {note 4, supra).,

Govt, Exh. 34, 4; by Jeri BRokkon on on the Mercantile

‘National. Bank, dated December 10, 1956, for $16,000, payable

vat eas (note 4, supra). ,

| wi teak Bis ac chake: tor: donk. Goodies. .om. ibm Seecatiaie

National Bank, dated December 19, 1956, for $7 00, payable

to aaa! fmen 4, eupra)..

(a) Low.,wag called. by ‘petationerand questioned _

_ about, the; occasion when he had delivered money, to -

petitioner outside the bank. ‘Several pages of his 1962

feghimeny..¥ were, read to -him and. he. was. tlien aeked 3

(R, Dis a

* -Bolttt Q. Neus I eatiarn: a stated that thie funds. |

from this particular check you ay. today, was”

. given to: Mr. Strauss, is that correct?’ , :

- Optiies ott Me To the best of’ my. memory, this is the tare

7 Sek check im which ‘the funds were even to. Mr. .2

: Rurther: iviiap-eiidtinined as’ ae ‘this caceuinsiteet. ten

_- Stated that ‘he could not connect it with any. particular

check: He admitted that a deposit slip to the Bolton.

account in the' Mercantile National Bank, dated Au-: .

gust 27, 1957, for $15,000 was im his handwriting and

_ indicated the | possibility or. likelihood that he ‘himself __

had deposited the, proceeds: of the ‘check i in the Bolton .

account. “He testified similarly-to a check for: $21, 000

payable. to J eri. Bolton, dated August 29, 1957, and.

. . another deposit slip in. this amount for the latter :

Se date (R. 19-22) 00" a sae. p “ks hy oth ca ae

i ip RE A la ie aright Rig ie ania

. check to Jeri Bolton, dated August: 27, 1957, for $15,000. Low

: had not stated at any:time, as asserted in. the question, that, the

funds from this particular check had been paid to petitioner, bit -

- had always testified that he could only stdte that a “pattern”

‘was followed, in which he would cash a check and deliver the-

. proceeds as directed to one of three places, See supra, 5-6... -

7 * Low did not, as petitioner asserts (Pet. 9), change his story "

after being confronted with the deposit slips. He had already

consistent with his testimony at the 1962 trial : “(Tjhere

were | a series of many,.many chécks” ¢(R. 10); “The proceeds.

followed agajn,-as I said before, a certain pattern. The exact .

eee of: any one check I cannot. tell yee, fapthtolly, hut; =

a

| a ; ys e ee ve . s

‘> lsetiRed’publiv’ aadountamt,testifed that he tind |

2 _aidited the books of rold Corporation. In the first

, nine months of 1957 - irte checks in the amount of

$15,000: or above were issued. “Only two were ‘cashed, a

ee the foregoing checks: to Jeri Bolton in the amounts of.

> $15,000 and’ $21,000-(R. 36-38). ‘Petitioner testified

| that Lowat no’ time delivered $15,000 or any other

‘gum of money to him:. He stated ‘that he was in

Colombia the biggest portion of 1957, but that he could

tot be specific about dates (R. 101-102). . “A tourist

card issued to petitioner and the certification of an |.

“official, based on the tourist card, that:petitioner'was

ee Colombia- from: August. 18 ‘to September 3, 1957,

were exhibited to the court (R. 141-148)... a

Yb) A handwriting expert testified | on behalf of

panttcenio with respect to the purported endorsement o

by. petitioner on Defendant’s Exhibit 11 (Govt. Exh.

| ; A 51 at trial), an enlargement of a microfilm of a com- ee

‘pany check dated October 11, 1956, payable to peti-

‘call tell you the pattern” (R. 19); ; “J. gave it, whether for this -

check ‘or any check, I gave Mr. Strauss $15,000. I don’t remem- ©

ber which check—* *-* I said it possibly could have ‘been this

be check. * * *. ‘There were many checks and I don’ recall which |

‘onie it is, as it was seven or eight years'ago. * * * To the best

: of'my mémory, it was in‘ late August * * * '7. _ was‘ just —

| gbout the time these. checks were: produced ‘or ‘existence.

There ‘were many, many’ ramifications and there rane aie -

made, money: ‘withdrawn, checks cashed, and as Y'started to ex-

' pltin, you were reading the pattern’ of things—money ‘was taken

: to the Western Union, taken and’ mailed to Rhodes Optical: ‘and

other monies were’ given back ‘to him, and other monies. he gave ©

. ' to his ‘wife or to: Mr. Strauss. There were a ‘uimber of checks,

or’ a series’ of. checks, there were diversion of this’ constant

-routine” (R. 12-14).~ ‘He ‘also stated:'“[T]t had fo be at least =

| Phiten ee eT

gave | hiin ‘ thie in por” (R.' 18). :

oceans taaAnS ep ethic

+

~ : ° Pies. oe : a « 4 Pp

". m a : fe a: os ec

: ‘%, r . ° b' *

4 ae m4 , . f : . 2 A

/ * % ‘

. : - we F % * ‘ : . ee \rr

é ~. . s A . 7 ora ‘

. oh . ‘ dhs .

Neteal in the siatunt: of $25,500 asin 4, 6, wii

?

- also not made by petitioner (R. 63-71). .

: (ey Petitioner. ee in. his preset ‘motion for a

_ new trial a 126): |

ecently, the defendant, ta ‘examining,

_ His initial answer was somewhat equivocal.” ‘He later

said that he did not consider. the endorsement genuine

_ because of irregularities in the lines caused by the pen.

. of the writer moving slowly, inadvertent motion habits— -

of ‘the writer- differing from those of petitioner, and —

. differences in the designs of letters (R. 52-54). For -.

similar reasons he was of the opinion that the endorse- a

‘ments ‘<Robert L, Strauss?’ on- ‘Government Exhibits —

84 and 35, checks drawn by Jeri Bolton to petitioner,

| dated December 10 and 19, 1956, in the. respective |

| amonnts ; of $16,000’ and $7,500 (note ‘6, spr) * were

‘records to be used in connection with the de- -"

fense of the income tax case aforementioned, —

found a certain document entitled’ “‘Release”’

‘which conclusively: proves the defendant’s sepa-

ration from the affairs of the Harold Corpora- -

tion after March 20, 1957. The defendant did

? Pétitioner’ s ‘expert's first answér was: .“T. found. the. ques-

s, Exhibit No. 11,'to have a resemblance in design to the

px ten signatures, | ‘Goveitimint’s . Exhibit No. 1; '30-L and

30-M beyond What anyone who was not. this ; ‘Robert’ Strauss,

but also had the. name. Robert. ‘Strauss, would causea resem-

blance to, be created, 80 that.the signature on Government’s Ex-

hibit No. ‘11, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 11, must: be either genuine

“and written by Robert, Strwuss the writer of the examples, or it

Must bean imitation” (R. 52).

2°On fhe first motion for new ital een Gosia: called, oe

by petitioner; testified that petitioner’s endorsement: on the |

check was genuine and that eae received ithe vse aneoae

Gace (2d Supp. R. 10-72). :

< “i : ride Res

y oe kz tigi 4 . . -

= @ é ~

+, ’ ne : : ¥ :

: < ° 3

. ° : a ia , ° .

, ° sO

= ‘ P : >

<a > 5 . “

. .

. } ;

: 7 Pa

; - . : F .

4 . ‘ : le

.

*

Bene: nan signature, Robert. Strauss of the. endorsement, ‘Defend

q

Uh

Da ine .

a

0

‘o

5) mot ipsoail the existence of the document. untit ;

_ recently ,found,>.a. copy -of said document: is

_ attached hereto marked Exhibit Or and pende

aan part, hereof. pra

This document, dated. March 20; 1957, ‘and pti ag

al eri, Bolton and Ray: Goodman, released petitioner. —

from all claims arising out of, the tripartite agreement

\ of petitioner, Goodman and Bolton, dated February 1, ._

956." _ At the hearing, petitioner testified that he

inated negotiating with Goodman in regard to Harold ._

_Corporation in late March 1956, that he was originally |

Teleased. from, the corporation. March 4-or 5, 1957, re-

joined the ¢ company so-that ‘he could properly. execute

a mortgage to the Pan. American Batik on March 14, _

"1957, then finally got out on March 20,.1957 (R. 100, ~

108).- Defendant's Exhibit 8 is a release. from the tri- :

“partite ‘agreement and, Defendant’s . Exhibit, 9 is a

. Felease hy, Harold Comoretian, both dated March 20, .

1957. &. 106).

—_

ARGUMENT Abe : Ces

‘Under the’ cireumstances here, petitioner is : plainly

nét entitled to a new trial on the ‘tn of the proffered

evidence: °The district court did not abuse its disere-

. tion’ in denying petitioner’ ~ motion, the decisions below .

were ‘therefore correct, and. there is Ho occasion for :

, seview by. this Court.

= (a) The “newly discovered evidenve” does not show *

“perjury. on thie -part of the. witness Low. This wit-

. Ness testified at trial on direct examination that on

a number of occasions Ke had cashed checks involving

This agrecmét is set iit in full in the Fifth Cirouit’s

ee see Pet. ‘App. 8-10. ©

i ae we e ra : . Se

ee

; ‘éompany funds ai had: given the proceeds either to

Goodman or to petitioner, or sent them to a geompany

in. Atlanta, but that he could not connect these trans- _

actions with ‘any particular ‘checks. - On eross-exam- |

ination ‘he recalled two specific occasions, one where ° .

petitioner followed him to ‘the bank ,and received

$15,000, or ‘more; the proceeds of one or more’ checks.

' When calleé by petitioner as a witness on. this’ mo- -

__.) tion and told that he-had identified: this transaction

_ . with a particular check-for $15,000 cashed: on August, *

27, 1957. (although there.was no ‘factual basis for this

_sassertion), Low accepted: it as true. “However, he

- promptly corrected. himself and reasserted his: trial

testiniony : a number of times ‘before: he was | shown a

deposit slip which indicated: the’ $15, 000 check was

deposited to the Jeri, Bolton account (supra,‘p. 7)..

.5 -Confusion thus induced as to details: grown indistinet,

‘ through: the passage of. years ‘patently “does ‘not ¢on-

'" stitute perjury. Nor -do We read “the testimony: of

‘the accountant, called by petitioner, as excluding’ the

possibility of: the: oceurrerice as’ originally’ testified ‘to: af

In any event, evidence which is merely éumilative: or

. impeaching re an insufficient basis. for’ the ‘granting’

- . of a new trial. ‘Mesarosh v. United States; 352° U8.

19s Ledet: v. United States, 297 FB, tg 73, 739

: —— Spt a Bi

oe Petitioner's reliance on ‘tcatineak Reeds wax is tiieplesegl” th. f

— in ‘the’ Court’s opinion ‘in that! case ‘it {s-expressly stated :

° -Ié-m be remembered’ that. we are’ not deating here

. with a motion for a new trial. initiated by «the detense, ©

“ander Rule’ 33. of ‘the Federal: Rules. ‘of Criminal Proce-

- dare, | presenting. un@@ithful” statements’ by ‘a’ Govertiment

witness subsequent tothe trial’ as newly @iseovered'evi- .

‘ dence — his. ‘cgedibility at the ‘trial: Such’ efi ‘alle- :

~@

‘incriminating checks introduced by the government."

On the motion as originally filed, the validity of one

of these enderseménts was contested ;. ‘by an.amend-

_.. Inent, two additional endorsements _were questioned.

-- The proper time for petitioner to have denied the ©

- executien: of these endorsements by expert opinion -

testimony, or otherwise, was at trial. At best, this _

new evidence was impeaching in nature, and, as noted

by the court below (Pet.. App. 4-5), did not ar

show that any “forgery” had occurred.

3. The newly discovered release by Jeri Bolton and

Ray Goodman, which was attached to petitioner’s new -

- trial raotion, is meaningless on its face. Bolton, by.

the admittedly: ‘genuine tripartite agreement, was a

mere straw figure to. front for petitioner and Goodman

in activities: in which they did, not. want their names .

to appear. At the hearing an additional ‘and even -

more newly discovered release- was presented which —

was’ purportedly executed by the corporation on the

same date. There was substantial evidence at trial

that petitioner did not terminate his relationship. with |

the’ company at any of the dates mentioned at one ——

time or another by petitioner or upon any other date. .

No evidence of. such - termination was (presented.

. Moreover, even if petitioner had withdrawn from the

corporation in March 1957, there: was ample evidence

‘gation by the defense ordinarily will’ not- support & motion

@. new trial, because new evidence which is “nrely

ulative or impeaching” is not, according to the ofter~

-Fepented statement of the courts, an adequate basis for the

grt of a new trial: (352 US. at.9). 7

2

** ®

‘18 PS,

to support his conviction on the basis of transfers and” .

concealment prior to that time. The offense here *' ©

charged could occur even before the corporation was.

formed. Kaplan v. United States, 7 F. 2d. 594, 596 a

(C.A. 2), certiorari denied,.269 U.S. 582... Cf. United. ~

_ States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 85-86; ‘Alkon v. . 3

United eng 163 Fed, 810 (C.A. 1). rae ey eet: ch he

CONCLUSION ; pchad Ca Rete oo - s.

For the foregoing reasons, it is reapectfully sab:

- mitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari should

be denied. ew gM ag

ae , Seaoinin hea

| 28 5.” Solicitor General. ages

Sa ee Frep M. Vinson, Jr., ee. ,

ca | Assistant ‘Attorney General. :

BEATRICE RosENBERG,

; | Kmor W. PatreRson, ;

~ \

pie : cr a * ef

_ NoveMser 1966. ©... |

: i : ~ w.s. coveansen PRINTING OFFICE: 1966

: peck a ii) °

: ( Pa °

a] F ST aren ee