From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Weinstein

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Feb 10, 1986
778 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1986)

Opinion

Nos. 83-5260, 83-5570.

December 16, 1985. Rehearings Denied February 10, 1986 in No. 83-5260.

Philip Weinstein and Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein, pro se.

David R. Mackenzie, P.A., Lauderhill, Fla., Harvey M. Stone, New York City, for Falvo.

Drew Neville, Oklahoma City, Okl., B.J. Rothbaum, Jr., New York City, for Richman.

Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Colan Simon, P.A., Irwin J. Block, Theodore Klein, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Gloria C. Phares, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before HILL, FAY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Honorable Edward S. Smith, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.


ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion June 12, 1985, 11 Cir., 762 F.2d 1522)


The panel opinion is modified by the following amendments: Change the word "vacated" to "reversed" where used in the last sentence of Part III. B. 2. b. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1535 and the second sentence of Part VIII of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1543.

The following sentence is struck from Part IV A of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1537:

Because we vacate Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we decline to review further her claims as to sufficiency of the evidence.

In its place the following is substituted:

Because we reverse Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we will not recite at length the remaining evidence against her. As observed above, it was sufficient.

In all other respects, the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.


Summaries of

United States v. Weinstein

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Feb 10, 1986
778 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1986)
Case details for

United States v. Weinstein

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PHILIP WEINSTEIN, "DR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Feb 10, 1986

Citations

778 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Smith

(“[A] prejudicial remark may be rendered harmless by curative instructions to the jury.”), modified, 778 F.2d…

U.S. v. Williams

"Reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct requires that the misconduct be so pronounced and…