finding no proof that government was seeking tactical advantage or to harass, or was motivated by considerations clearly contrary to public interest, where government stated that it obtained superseding indictment in order to add an element of the crime
Summary of this case from U.S. v. CisnerosNo. 95-6743.
January 8, 1996.
C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 65 F. 3d 29.
finding no proof that government was seeking tactical advantage or to harass, or was motivated by considerations clearly contrary to public interest, where government stated that it obtained superseding indictment in order to add an element of the crime
Summary of this case from U.S. v. CisnerosFull title:ORELLANA v. KYLE
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 8, 1996
The Supreme Court has decided that only those state-created substantive interests which "inevitably affect…
State v. McCroyThe court noted that his admission to the bar allowed it to assume that counsel had the training, knowledge,…