Legal Opinion
United States v. DiSalvo
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 24, 1989No. Crim. 83-00041-01PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LOUIS H. POLLAK, Justice.
The Government has moved for reconsideration of my Memorandum and Order of July 11,1989. I there sustained the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Hall that Mr. DiSalvo’s supplemental motion pursuant to section 2255 be granted, that his conviction be vacated, and that he be accorded a new trial. The basis for Magistrate Hall’s Report and Recommendation, and for my Memorandum and Order, was Magistrate Hall’s determination that (1) notwithstanding Mr. DiSalvo’s expressed desire to testify, his attorney did not call him as a witness, and (2) Mr. DiSalvo’s…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. Gambino, Rosario, Erasmo Gambino, Antonio Gambino, and Anthony SpatolaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- United States v. Robert MartinezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Charles D. Lema v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Boyd v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- United States v. RoblesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- United States v. MoskovitsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- United States v. LoreDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.