Legal Opinion

United States v. Giramonti

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided October 27, 1960No. Cr. No. 10180PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TIMBERS, District Judge.

Defendant moves, pursuant to Rule 7 (f), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C., for a bill of particulars with respect to the indictment and, pursuant to Rule 16, Fed.R. Crim.P., for inspection of a document referred to in the indictment.

*169The indictment, in one count, charges defendant, Helen Asvestas Giramonti, with having uttered and passed a forged Post Office Money Order, knowing a material signature or indorsement to be false, with intent to defraud the United States or one Joseph J. Pacyna, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500. The indictment specifies that the alleged offense…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wong Tai v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. United States v. DolanDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1953
  3. United States v. SchneidermanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1952
  4. United States v. Marty RussoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
  5. United States v. PignoneDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1960

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. TannerDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1967
  2. State v. HicksTennessee Supreme Court · 1984
  3. United States v. ManettiDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1971
  4. United States v. PalmisanoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. United States v. AranciDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API