ISRAEL SCHAWARTZBERG, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's motion to vacate his conviction was properly denied because he failed to raise the issue of severance timely and his claim of prejudice was unsupported.
Appellant sought to vacate his conviction for conspiracy to obstruct justice and suborn perjury, alleging the government fostered hostility with a co-…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Severance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Israel Schawartzberg appeals from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying without a hearing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction for having conspired with two codefendants to obstruct justice and to suborn perjury. See United States v. Kahn, 366 F. 2d 259 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 948, 87 S.Ct. 324, 17 L.Ed.2d 226 (1966). Appellant contends that his conviction is tainted because the government fostered hostility toward him on the part of one Vincent Pacelli, a codefendant, and suppressed evidence of the resulting conflict and antagonism between them. He alleges that disclosure of these facts would have entitled him to a severance and that he was prejudiced by the joint trial. We hold that appellant’s motion was properly denied.
Although in an affidavit submitted almost four months before trial appellant indicated that he was aware of the circumstances that he now claims would have entitled him to a severance, and although he made a motion for severance on other grounds, appellant did not raise the issue of hostility before or during trial or on appeal. Since appellant failed to establish or press his contention at an earlier time, when a separate trial could easily have been ordered, appellant is barred from raising the contention by a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction. See United States v. Re, 372 F. 2d 641, 643-44 (2d Cir. 1967), petition for cert, filed, 35 U.S.L.Week 3377 (U.S. April 15, 1967) (No. 1276); United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F. 2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965) (en banc), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907, 86 S.Ct. 887, 15 L.Ed.2d 663 (1966).
Moreover, appellant’s claim of prejudice is unsupported by any factual allegations and is to a large extent refuted by the fact that Paeelli did not testify at the trial. It is wholly conclusory and too insubstantial to require a hearing. See, e. g., Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962); United States ex rel. Homchak v. New York, 323 F. 2d 449 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 919, 84 S.Ct. 677, 11 L.Ed.2d 615 (1964).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- MacHibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1962)
- United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Campbell v. United States, 383 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1966)
- Fowler et ux. v. United States, 383 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Kahn, 366 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1966)
- Zegers, Inc. v. Zegers, 385 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1966)
- Driscoll v. Toledo Blade Co., 385 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1966)
- Mora v. United States, 376 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1964)
- Woods v. Kansas, 376 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. RE, 372 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1967)