TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Robert J. Cohen

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert J. COHEN, Appellant

United States v. Cohen, 448 F.2d 654 (8th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 20, 1971
Docket
No. 71-1013_1
Judges
Van Oosterhout, Hea-Ney, Ross
Citations
448 F.2d 6541971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7985

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in forma pauperis by the defendant Robert J. Cohen from his conviction by a jury on an indictment charging violation of 15 U.S.C.A. § 714m (c). Defendant was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The execution of the sentence was suspended; defendant was placed on probation for three years.

Defendant heretofore obtained a new trial on appeal from a prior conviction for the same offense upon the ground no adequate basis existed for not affording him court-appointed counsel. United States v. Cohen, 8 Cir., 419 F.2d 1124 . The issue raised on the present appeal was not there raised.

Cohen on his present appeal asserts: “The admission into evidence of Robert J. Cohen’s alleged oral and written confessions violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due process and to protection against compulsive self-incrimination.”

Cohen filed a motion to suppress oral and written statements made to a Department of Agriculture investigator. Such motion was denied. The facts, the issues and the applicable law are fairly and fully stated by Judge Van Pelt in a memorandum opinion reported at 317 F. Supp. 1049 .

Judge Urbom presided over the trial which resulted in the conviction involved in the present case. The motion to suppress previously referred to was renewed. No new material facts bearing upon the suppression issue were developed.

We hold that the oral and written statements made by Cohen to the Department of Agriculture investigator were properly received in evidence for the reasons stated in Judge Van Pelt’s well-considered reported opinion.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Thompson251 N.W.2d 387 (Neb. 1977)

Most recent

  1. State v. Thompson251 N.W.2d 387 (Neb. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Cohen, 419 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir. 1969) 36
United States v. Cohen, 317 F. Supp. 1049 (D. Neb. 1970) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list