United States v. Wilson

8 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Wilson

    420 U.S. 332 (1975)   Cited 915 times
    Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"

    P. 353. 492 F.2d 1345, reversed and remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined.

  2. United States v. Shafer

    384 F. Supp. 480 (N.D. Ohio 1974)   Cited 6 times
    Denying evidentiary hearing where defendants failed to support their motion to dismiss with specific allegations of actual prejudice

    Rather, the type of substantial prejudice required is that found by the Court in United States v. Wilson, 492 F.2d 1345 (3rd Cir. 1973), where the "only witness who could explain the circumstances . . . became terminally ill during the period of unreasonable delay" ( 492 F.2d at 1348). In contrast to that situation it was held in United States v. Galardi, 476 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1973), that, "the assertion that a missing witness might have been useful, does not show the 'actual prejudice' required by Marion" ( 476 F.2d at 1075).

  3. State v. Kleinwaks

    68 N.J. 328 (N.J. 1975)   Cited 25 times
    Holding Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar State from appealing judgment of acquittal entered after jury returned guilty verdict

    However, following a jury verdict of guilty, the trial judge granted a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of prejudicial delay between the offense and the indictment. The Government sought to appeal the dismissal but the Third Circuit held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment barred review of the District Court's ruling. 492 F.2d 1345. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in an opinion written by Justice Marshall, held that when a trial judge dismisses an indictment after a verdict of guilty has been entered by the trier of fact, the Government may appeal from that ruling without running afoul of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

  4. United States v. Margiotta

    662 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1981)   Cited 62 times
    Finding jurisdiction under § 3731 where district court ruling had the "practical effect of eliminating an independent basis upon which a conviction could be secured"

    04[3] (2d ed. 1973).United States v. Wilson, 492 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1973) (although district court labelled action a "dismissal" of the indictment, reviewing court should determine appealability of district court's order by reference to legal effect rather than label), rev'd on other grounds and remanded, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975). We agree that appealability from a dismissal under § 3731 does not require formal dismissal of an entire count of an indictment.

  5. United States v. Mays

    549 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that "[t]he assertion that a missing witness might have been useful does not show the [required] actual prejudice"

    The question for the trial judge should not be whether the record, viewed in light of the independently proved potential testimony of now deceased witnesses, indicates that the defendant is either guilty or innocent as charged. Rather, the inquiry should be whether that determination can be made, ultimately, in a forum wherein the judge has confidence that the pertinent transactions can be reconstructed accurately. To illustrate, in United States v. Wilson, 357 F. Supp. 619 (E.D.Pa. 1973), appeal dismissed, 492 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1973) reversed and appeal reinstated, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1974), the defendant was charged with embezzling funds from a labor organization of which he was the business manager. The manner in which the funds allegedly were converted was by way of a check signed by two officers of the union.

  6. United States v. Jaramillo

    510 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 19 times

    We feel that the Second Circuit correctly decided the Jenkins case against the government's position. See also United States v. Wilson, 492 F.2d 1345 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert. granted, 417 U.S. 908, 94 S.Ct. 2603, 41 L.Ed.2d 211 (1974). The government appears to assume that no second trial would be necessary here, an assumption that may or may not be true. If the judge who heard the matter initially were still available when the case was remanded, no new trial would be required. If he were not available, a new trial would be necessary as the judge who tried the case did not make findings as to all elements of the offense.

  7. United States v. Suarez

    505 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    There has been a legal determination of innocence on the basis of the facts, adduced at the trial, relating to the general issues of the case, and therefore on the basis of Jenkins and the authorities relied upon in the majority opinion, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by virtue of the constitutional ban of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In addition to Jenkins, the applicable cases are United States v. Wilson, 492 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1973), cert. granted, 417 U.S. 908, 94 S.Ct. 2603, 41 L.Ed.2d 211 (1974) (does Double Jeopardy bar a government appeal from a district court order, entered after a jury verdict of guilty, dismissing an indictment on the ground of unnecessary pre-indictment delay), and Serfass v. United States, 492 F.2d 388 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. granted, 416 U.S. 955. 94 S.Ct. 1967, 40 L.Ed.2d 304 (1974) (does Double Jeopardy bar a government appeal from an order, entered prior to the empanelling of a jury, dismissing an indictment on the basis of a legal ruling by the district court after examination of records and affidavits setting forth the evidence to be adduced at trial).

  8. United States v. Serfass

    492 F.2d 388 (3d Cir. 1974)   Cited 9 times

    Not only were none of the procedures required by Rule 23(a) complied with, but attached to the motion to dismiss the indictment was a motion to postpone the trial until after the disposition of the motion on the merits. Cf. United States v. Wilson, 492 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir., filed January 15, 1974) (opinion sur denial of panel rehearing) ( post-trial directed verdict of acquittal). Pecora distinguished United States v. Hill, 473 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1972), which held unappealable the district court's pretrial dismissal of an indictment alleging the mailing of obscene advertisements.