Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul MITZKOFF and Leroy Friedman, Defendants-Appellants, 1975 — 524 F.2d 488 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul MITZKOFF and Leroy Friedman, Defendants-Appellants
524 F.2d 488·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul MITZKOFF and Leroy Friedman, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 75-1149.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1975.
Denis Dean, Miami, Fla. (court appointed), for Mitzkoff.
Arthur Massey, Miami, Fla. (court appointed), Ralph F. Pelaia, Miami, Fla., for Friedman.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., J. Daniel Ennis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
Defendants-appellants Mitzkoff and Friedman seek review of judgments of conviction entered at the close of a jury trial in which they were charged with a scheme and artifice to defraud by mail, 18 U.S.C. § 1341; fraud by wire communication, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; transporting in interstate commerce security converted and taken by fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 2314; and conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 371. Defendant Mitzkoff specifies the following errors: (1) the trial court allowed the indictment to go to the jury room without removing from all counts the names of co-defendants not on trial; (2) the trial court permitted hearsay testimony without a proper cautionary instruction; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Defendant Friedman specifies the following errors: (1) the trial court allowed the indictment to go to the jury room without removing from all counts the names of the co-defendants not on trial; (2) the Government, acting in bad faith, proceeded to trial on a 29 count indictment against defendant and, having known in advance of trial that they would not present evidence on 22 of the 29 counts, dismissed 22 counts at the close of the case. In the light of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, we have carefully considered these allegations and find no merit in any of them.
Affirmed.