Legal Opinion
United States v. Cannistraro
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided July 22, 1992No. Crim. A. 89-218PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LECHNER, District Judge.
This is a criminal action which originated on 16 June 1989 when an indictment (the “Indictment”) was returned. Defendants Richard O. Bertoli (“Bertoli”), Leo M. Eisenberg (“Eisenberg”) and Richard S. Cannistraro (“Cannistraro”) were named in the Indictment. 1 On 29 September 1989 a six count superseding indictment (the “Superseding Indictment”) 2 was returned against Bertoli, Cannistraro and Eisenberg. 3 On 21 January 1992 the Govern ment returned an eight count second superseding indictment (the “Second Superseding Indictment”) against Bertoli and Cannistraro…
2Cases cited162 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
157 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Securities Exchange Commission v. Monarch Funding Corporation, Leo M. Eisenberg, Steven R. Cloyes, and Richard M. Cannistraro, Richard O. BertoliCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- United States v. QayyumCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. BertoliDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- United States v. GiampaDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1995
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. ThompsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.