Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

United States v. Muscato

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
534 F. Supp. 969 (1982)


Facts

The United States government (plaintiff) prosecuted John Muscato, Walter Gollender, Charles McDonald, and other conspirators (defendants) for illegal gun manufacture. The government alleged Muscato loaned Gollender a pistol in furtherance of the conspiracy. Following his arrest, Gollender described the distinctively marked pistol to Special Agent Matthew Raffa. Raffa later arrested McDonald and found a pistol matching Gollender's description in McDonald's possession. At trial, Gollender testified he borrowed Muscato's pistol under circumstances implicating Muscato's guilt. Gollender also identified and accurately described the pistol during his testimony, prior to examining the pistol closely on the witness stand or being told that it was the pistol found in McDonald’s possession. Muscato challenged Gollender's credibility. The government then introduced Gollender's post-arrest description of the pistol and Raffa's testimony that he later retrieved a pistol matching the description from McDonald. The jury convicted Muscato, and he filed a motion for new trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Muscato argued Gollender's post-arrest description of the pistol was inadmissible hearsay.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Weinstein, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.