United States v. Arlt

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Kendrick

    98 F. App'x 692 (9th Cir. 2004)

    Although the two conspiracies involved the same drug smuggling and distribution organization, the two conspiracies were legally distinct because they had two distinct objectives, namely, the importation and the distribution of ecstasy. SeeAlbernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 & n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981); United States v. Arlt, 252 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Also, the elements of the Count Two conspiracy were not "necessarily decided" by the jury in her favor when it acquitted her on the Count One conspiracy.

  2. White v. Ryan

    No. CV-08-08139-PCT-SPL (D. Ariz. Jul. 10, 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that failure to record bench conferences during trial did not violate petitioner's right to public trial

    In Blockburger the Court held that "[t]he applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." 284 U.S. at 304; see United States v. Arlt, 252 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) ("What is determinative under the Court's double jeopardy doctrine is simply whether the statutes involved require satisfaction of the same statutory elements, or whether each statute requires proof of an element that the other does not.").