United States v. Grady case brief summary
544 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976)
CASE FACTS
Appellant purchased firearms from co-appellant for shipment to Northern Ireland. Appellant allowed certain people to sign his federal firearms record even though he knew that they did not individually pay for and were not going to receive the firearms for which they signed. Co-appellant then exported the firearms. Appellants argued that appellee's prosecution was time-barred by the statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3282, because a superseding indictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Appellants' convictions were affirmed where statute of limitations was tolled as to charges in superseding indictment which was not substantively different from original indictment, police records were admissible under public records exception to hearsay rule, and evidence of similar acts was highly probative of appellants' motive.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
544 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants sought review of judgment
from the United States District Court for Southern District of New
York convicting them of false statements on federal firearms records
and conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(m) and 923,
and of illegal exportation of firearms in violation of 22
U.S.C.S. § 1934.CASE FACTS
Appellant purchased firearms from co-appellant for shipment to Northern Ireland. Appellant allowed certain people to sign his federal firearms record even though he knew that they did not individually pay for and were not going to receive the firearms for which they signed. Co-appellant then exported the firearms. Appellants argued that appellee's prosecution was time-barred by the statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3282, because a superseding indictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled as to the offense charged in the superseding indictment because there was no substantive difference from the charges which were brought in the timely first indictment.
- Police records were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B), because they were related to the routine function of recording receipt of weapons found in Northern Ireland.
CONCLUSION
Appellants' convictions were affirmed where statute of limitations was tolled as to charges in superseding indictment which was not substantively different from original indictment, police records were admissible under public records exception to hearsay rule, and evidence of similar acts was highly probative of appellants' motive.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment