MILLER ET UX.

v.

CAMP, COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

Citator

Cited By (67 total)

• United States v. Kahn, 472 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …Judge Motley’s instructions on the extortion defense were erroneous. [*279] At the outset, it is clear that Judge Motley’s instructions virtually mirrored those approved by this court in United States v. Barash, 412 F. 2d 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 832, 90 S.Ct. 86, 24 L.Ed.2d 82 (1969) (Barash II). Kahn and Teleprompter, however, point to two instances where the charge deviated, albeit slightly, from Barash II and claim prejudicial error. First, appellants object to that portion of the charge whe…
• United States v. Peskin, 527 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1975)
  …id. 404(b), Act of January 2, 1975, Pub.L. No. 93-595. Evidence of the subsequent payoff was admissible on that theory absent a showing of overriding prejudice or remoteness. United States v. Barash, 412 F. 2d 26, 30-31 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 832, 90 S.Ct. 86, 24 L.Ed.2d 82. We think that it was not an abuse of discretion to rule that this incident was a proper subject for cross examination. Cf. United States v. Kahn, supra, 472 F. 2d at 282. VI. HAYTER AND FAUBIAN TESTIMONY Peskin also as…
• United States v. Alessio, 528 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …the federal bribery statute that was revised in 1962. Section 201(f) has consistently been interpreted as not requiring a quid pro quo before payments to.officials are unlawful. In United States v. Barash, 412 F. 2d 26 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 832, 90 S.Ct. 86, 24 L.Ed.2d 82 (1969), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held it was a violation of Section 201(f) for a tax attorney representing clients in audits before the Internal Revenue Service to make payments to tax auditors, “whethe…