Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Meger Sigal, United States of America v. Abe Rabinovitz

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 9, 1965No. 14476_1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiggs, Chief Judge

The unanimous views of the court are expressed under the first four headings of this opinion, “I”, “II”, “III”, and “IV”. A dissent is expressed by the writer under heading “V”, that dissent being based upon the failure to record the voir dire examination of the jury.

The defendants-appellants, Sigal and Rabinovitz, with two other individuals, indicted jointly, were convicted, after a jury trial, of wilfully violating provisions relating to wagering of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C., specifically, (Count I), of an attempt to evade the 10% wagering excise tax imposed by Section…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Fay v. NoiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  4. United States v. RabinowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  5. United States v. Di ReSupreme Court of the United States · 1948

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API