Bachman Machine Co. v. National Labor Relations Board Bachman Machine Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Bachman Machine Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

1959.C08.40134 266 F.2D 599

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

Appellant was charged, tried and convicted on an information of four counts charging violations of certain provisions of the Narcotic Act, to wit, Sec. 4741(a) and Sec. 4742(a) of Title 26, United States Code. In the course of this opinion we shall refer to appellant as defendant. The information on which defendant was tried was filed November 27, 1957, at which time defendant appeared in person and by Mr. Bernard Mellman, counsel of his own choice. After the disposition of certain pre-trial motions the court, on January 17, 1958, set the case down for trial for March 5, 1958. On March 4, 1958, at 9:30 a. m., the day before trial was scheduled to commence, defendants attorney, Mr. Mellman, had a conference with the court. Present at the conference was Alphonse J. Lynch. At the conference the court was informed that defendant had advised Mr. Mellman that he would seek other counsel and that he had talked to Mr. Lynch who agreed to represent defendant but wished a continuance in order to have time to prepare for trial. In response to this suggestion the court stated that it had called and set the docket and that there was no time available to which the case could be passed and re-set. Moreover, the case had been set for a day certain for better than six weeks. Therefore, the court was not disposed to grant a continuance. The next day, March 5, 1958, the case was called for trial and Mr. Lynch entered his and moved for a continuance on the ground that he had not had sufficient opportunity to prepare for trial. The court denied the motion for a continuance. It also granted Mr. Mellmans request that he be permitted not to be present at the trial but the court stated that Mr. Mellman would have to remain if Mr. Lynch insisted.The court also said that after the Government had presented its case, the court would - and it did - lay the case over until the following day to give Mr. Lynch opportunity to prepare his defense. mr. Mellman was absent during the entire trial. After recessing the trial following the Governments case, defendant presented his defense.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1959
15 May
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
19
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
74.7
KB
Wilson v. Burlington Northern Inc. Wilson v. Burlington Northern Inc.
1982
Drudge v. Overland Plazas Co. Drudge v. Overland Plazas Co.
1982
Seniors United for Action v. Ray Seniors United for Action v. Ray
1982
United States v. Jones United States v. Jones
1982
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority v. Missouri Kansas City Area Transportation Authority v. Missouri
1981
Cargill, Inc. v. Taylor Towing Service Inc. Cargill, Inc. v. Taylor Towing Service Inc.
1981