Legal Opinion
United States v. Cannistraro
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided February 11, 1992No. Crim. A. 89-218PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LECHNER, District Judge.
This is a criminal action which originated on 16 June 1989 when an indictment (the “Indictment”) was returned. Defendants Richard 0. Bertoli (“Bertoli”), Leo M. Eisenberg (“Eisenberg”) and Richard S. Cannistraro (“Cannistraro”) (collectively the “Defendants”) were named in the Indictment. 1 On 29 September 1989 a six count superseding indictment (the “Superseding Indictment”) 2 was returned against the Defendants. 3 On 21 January 1992 the Gov ernment returned an eight count second superseding indictment (the “Second Superseding Indictment”) against Bertoli and…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Welty, John JacobCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. Richard O. Bertoli Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, Court-Appointed Standby Counsel for Richard O. BertoliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- United States v. BertoliDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- United States v. CannistraroDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Kingdom v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.