PROVUS BROTHERS, INC.

v.

HOLMAN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Carmine Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975)
  …1 L.Ed.2d 209 (1974). Evidence of sudden acquisition of large amounts of money is also admissible to prove criminal misconduct when pecuniary gain, as here, is the basic motive. United States v. Jackskion, 102 F. 2d 683, 684 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 1032, 83 L.Ed. 1517 (1939). As then Justice Holmes said in Commonwealth v. Mulrey, 170 Mass. 103, 49 N.E. 91, 94 (1898) (evidence of deposits too large to be accounted for by salary admitted), “ . it is not necessary that every piece of ev…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979)
  …rime in which pecuniary gain is the usual motive, evidence of the sudden acquisition of money by the defendant is admissible, even though the source of the money is not traced”. United States v. Jackskion, 102 F. 2d 683, 684 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 1032, 83 L.Ed. 1517 (1939). See also United States v. Hinton, 543 F. 2d 1002, 1012-13 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Carter v. United States, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 493, 50 L.Ed.2d 589 (1976) (in narcotics prosecution, proper to introdu…
• United States v. Teodoro Ariza-Ibarra, 605 F.2d 1216 (1st Cir. 1979)
  …— a financial event of such small scale as not to suggest any connection with the bank deposits of the defendant and his wife of less than $5,000. We share the view expressed in United States v. Jackskion, 102 F. 2d 683, 684 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 635, 59 S.Ct. 1032, 83 L.Ed. 1517 (1939), a bootlegging case, that, “[W]here a defendant is on trial for a crime in which pecuniary gain is the usual motive, evidence of the sudden acquisition of money by the defendant is admissible, even though the so…