◆ SpookStack

ee a ee a ea i NY 100-18676 Also on January 31, 1955, AUSA BAILEY advised an order to show cause why @ new trial should not be granted in the case of "UNITED STATES ws. E. G NRLINN El aL" (sub ject a defendant in this case) was filed in the United States ‘ District Court, Southern District of New_York. An order to show cause was returnable in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on Feburary 2, 1955, and was based on affidavits of defendants’ Attorney MARY KAUFMAN and former government witness HARVEY USOW, who alleged that - certain matters to which hetestiZied were either false or not entirely true. On February 2, 1955, Judge DIMOCK set hearing on motion for new trial for March 10, 1955; on February 6, 1955, Judge DIMOCK reset the hearing for February 10, 1955. the - hearing commenced on February \10, 1955, with defendants ‘/7 // represented by Attorneys HARK ACHER and MARY KAUFMAN, — On April 22, 1955, AUSA BAILEY advised Judge DIMOCK had filed an opinion denying the motion for a new trial la as to ali defendants with the exception of GEORGE BLAKE. ‘/) “ EY and ALEXAND. RACHTENBERG. — The United States Supreme Court Clierk's records reflect that the defendants - appellants in the "UNITED STATES vs. E. G. FLYNN, Ef AL," ineluding the subject, filed a petition for rehearing in: the United States Supreme Court ~ on February k, 1955. AUSA BAILEY advised on April 1, 1955, tht United States District Judge DIMOCK filed a short memorandm opinion ~ thet day, denying motion to reduce or suspend sentence of sub ject; DIMOCK conditioned denial om subject's motion on previous statement to Bureau of Prisons that it would provide salt-free diet for subject. AUSA BAILEY advised on May 6, 1955, that defendants! attorney had filed & motion for reargnment on the motion for a new trial in the UNITED STATES va, FLYNN case. This notica was returngpie on May lo, 1955, at which time there -3- CONT