United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Samuel F. Maniscalco, Jr., Steven Bertolino, Richard F.murphy, Frank Musso, Guy Courtney, Walton Aucoin,and Joseph Carriles, Defendants-appellees, 527 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1976)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 527 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1976) March 5, 1976

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Roy Beene, Sp. Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Thomas E. Rickhoff, Sp. Atty., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Virgil M. Wheeler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Maniscalco.

John E. Unsworth, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Courtney.

Michael O. Miranne, New Orleans, La., for Murphy.

Louis B. Merhige, New Orleans, La., for Aucoin.

Salvatore Panzeca, New Orleans, La., for Musso and Carriles.

F. Irvin Dymond, New Orleans, La., for Bertolino.

Before JONES, WISDOM and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


This case and United States v. Ladd, 5th Cir. 1976, 527 F.2d 1341 (74--3757), and United States v. Alfonso et al., 5th Cir. 1976, 527 F.2d 1343 (74--3776), decided this day, are companion cases. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana suppressed wiretap evidence on the ground that the wiretap order of January 7, 1971, was insufficient on its face. The government appeals this ruling.

What was said in the Ladd case applies here. The court erred in suppressing the evidence. The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.