◆ SpookStack

ra XN NY 100-161445 he fa Peary Peat a A a _ Se Go ese POM DS or ns m In the event that this judge were to determine that the eae maximum sentence for any of the defendants was to be less pe than six months, then a jury trial would not be necessary. The Court did not go to the merits of any of the individual citations against any subject as to legal sufficiency, however, did so in the case of the two attorneys for the defense, that is, KUNSTLER and WEINGLASS. In its opinion the Court held specifications deemed legally insufficient regarding WEINGLASS were numbers one, two, three, five, six, seven, and eight. Regarding KUNSTLER, specifications mumbered one, two, five, eleven, twelve, a thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, the first part of seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen, were deemed legally insufficient. The remainder were reversed and remanded under ~~ -the same guidelines as the non-lawyer appellanis. - + lee oe ver aa No disposition has yet been made by the Court of pe the Appeals regarding the substantive antiriot law convictions. 2. Anti-Riot Law Violation In Washington, D.C. | N ee On June 27, 1972, (anna aon Judge J. LEWIS SMITH, United States District Court, eo District of Columbia, advised that the trial date for case | rank number 97371, United States va. ABBOTT HOWARD HOFFMAN, has not been set. aera etoee that since the United a States Supreme Court has ruled on the Sixth Circuit case of RN: United States vs. KEITH, a decision should be made by cee Judge SMITH in the immediate future as to the setting of a _ being reviewed in light of the KEITH case by Judge SMITH. An kccnet 7. 1677 el On August /, L9/Z, ee » United States District Court, Washington, D.C., advised that in the case of United States vs. ABBOTT HOWARD HOFFMAN (case number 97371), the government moved on July 28, 1972, to dismiss two indictments against HOFFMAN. and possible trial date for subject's case. further advised that the HOFFMAN case is presently a ed + hey ‘ * detrmbes i , ~3- f 4 pe one < S