U S V Lovasco

U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S.
783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Not Followed as Dicta U.S. v. Orum, M.D.Ala., November 2, 2012
97 S.Ct. 2044
Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
Eugene LOVASCO, Sr.
No. 75-1844. | Argued March 21-22, 1977. | Decided June 9, 1977. | Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1977.
See 434 U.S. 881, 98 S.Ct. 242.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed all counts of indictment, and the United States
appealed. The Court of Appeals, 532 F.2d 59, affirmed, and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Marshall,
held that to prosecute a defendant following investigative delay does not deprive him of due process, even if his defense might
have been somewhat prejudiced by lapse of time.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stevens filed dissenting opinion.
West Headnotes (11)
[1] Criminal Law Decisions of Intermediate Courts
110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(S) Decisions of Intermediate Courts
110k1179 In General
Arguments which were not raised in the district court or in the Court of Appeals will not, absent exceptional
circumstances, be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
[2] Indictment and Information Term of Court or Time of Finding
210 Indictment and Information
210II Finding and Filing of Indictment or Presentment
210k7 Term of Court or Time of Finding
Where defendant was not arrested until after he was indicted, district court in dismissing indictment for preindictment
delay plainly erred in basing its decision on rule which permits district court to dismiss indictments due to pre or
postindictment delay but application of which is limited to postarrest situations. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 48(b), 18
U.S.C.A.
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
[3] Constitutional Law Neglect or Delay
Criminal Law Nature and Scope of Limitations
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)4 Proceedings and Trial
92k4578 Charging Instruments; Indictment and Information
92k4580 Neglect or Delay
(Formerly 92k265)
110 Criminal Law
110X Limitation of Prosecutions
110k145.5 Nature and Scope of Limitations
(Formerly 110k1451/2)
Statute of limitations, which provides predictable, legislatively enacted limits on prosecutorial delay, provides
primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges; however, statute of limitations does not fully define
defendants' rights with respect to events occurring prior to indictment and due process clause has limited role to play
in protecting against oppressive delay. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.
92XXVII Due Process
(Formerly 92k265)
Proof of prejudice is generally necessary but not sufficient element of due process claim concerning preindictment
delay, and due process inquiry must therefore consider reasons for delay as well as prejudice to accused.
[5] Constitutional Law Charging Decisions; Prosecutorial Discretion
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H)3 Law Enforcement
92k4521 Conduct of Police and Prosecutors in General
92k4527 Charging Decisions; Prosecutorial Discretion
92k4527(1) In General
(Formerly 92k257)
Due process clause does not permit courts to abort criminal prosecutions simply because they disagree with a
prosecutor's judgment as to when to seek indictment.
[6] Constitutional Law Equity
Constitutional Law Criminal Law
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(C) Judicial Powers and Functions
92XX(C)2 Encroachment on Legislature
92k2485 Inquiry Into Legislative Judgment
92k2495 Equity
(Formerly 92k257)
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H)1 In General
92k4500 In General
(Formerly 92k257)
Judges are not free in defining due process to impose on law enforcement officials their personal and private notions
of fairness and to disregard limits that bind judges in their judicial function but rather judges' task is to determine
whether actions complained of violate those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at base of civil and political
institutions and which define community's sense of fair play and decency.
Prosecutors are under no duty to file charges as soon as probable cause exists but before they are satisfied that they
will be able to establish suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no constitutional requirement that government file charges promptly once it has assembled sufficient evidence
to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if investigation of entire criminal transaction is not complete, since such
requirement might impair prosecutor's ability to continue investigation or obtain additional indictment, would pressure
prosecutors into resolving doubtful cases in favor of early, and possibly unwarranted, prosecution and would preclude
government from giving full consideration to desirability of not prosecuting in particular cases. U.S.C.A.Const.
Amend. 5.
92XXVII Due Process
(Formerly 92k265)
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
To prosecute a defendant following preindictment investigative delay, which is fundamentally unlike delay undertaken
by the government solely to gain tactical advantage over the accused precisely because investigative delay is not so
one sided, does not deprive him of due process, even if his defense might have been somewhat prejudiced by lapse
of time. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.
Where finding that only reason government postponed action was to await results of additional investigation was
supported by prosecutor's representations that investigation continued during delay and that delay was caused by
Government's efforts to identify persons in addition to defendant who might have participated in offenses, compelling
defendant, who testified that he lost testimony of two material witnesses due to more than 18-month delay between
alleged commission of federal criminal offenses and indictment, to stand trial would not be fundamentally unfair. 18
U.S.C.A. 1708; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.
[11] Criminal Law Grand Jury and Indictment
110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(L) Scope of Review in General
110XXIV(L)4 Scope of Inquiry
110k1134.36 Grand Jury and Indictment
(Formerly 110k1134(3))
Task of applying settled principles of due process in determining when preaccusation delay requires dismissal of
prosecution in particular circumstances of individual case will be left to the lower courts in the first instance.
**2045 Syllabus
*
*
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience
of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.
*783 More than 18 months after federal criminal offenses were alleged to have occurred, respondent was indicted for
committing them. Beyond an investigative report made a month after the crimes were committed, little additional information
was developed in the following 17 months. Claiming that the preindictment delay, during which material defense testimony
had been lost, deprived him of due process, respondent moved to dismiss the indictment. The District Court, which found that
the delay had not been explained or justified and was unnecessary and prejudicial to respondent, granted the motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the delay, which it found was solely attributable to the Government's hope that
other participants in the crime would be discovered, was unjustified. Held : The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the District
Court's dismissal of the indictment. Pp. 2048-2053.
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
(a) Although the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable only after a person has been accused of a crime
and statutes of limitations provide the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges, United States v.
Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322, 92 S.Ct. 455, 464, 30 L.Ed.2d 468, those statutes do not fully define a defendant's rights with respect
to events antedating the indictment, and the Due Process Clause has a limited role to play in protecting against oppressive
delay. Pp. 2048-2049.
(b) While proof of prejudice makes a due process claim ripe for adjudication, it does not automatically validate such a claim,
and the reasons for the delay must also be considered. Pp. 2048-2049.
(c) To prosecute a defendant following good-faith investigative delay, as apparently existed in this case, does not deprive him of
due process even if his defense might have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time. Prosecutors are under no duty to file
charges as soon as probable cause exists but before they are satisfied that they will be able to establish a suspect's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Nor is there a constitutional requirement that charges must be filed after there is sufficient evidence to prove
such guilt but before the investigation is complete. An immediate arrest or indictment might impair the prosecutors' ability to
continue the investigation or obtain additional indic **2046 tments, *784 would pressure prosecutors into resolving doubtful
cases in favor of early (and possibly unwarranted) prosecutions, and would preclude full consideration of the desirability of
not prosecuting in particular cases. Pp. 2049-2052.
8 Cir., 532 F.2d 59, reversed.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Louis Gilden, St. Louis, for the respondent.
John P. Rupp, Washington, D. C., for the petitioner.
Opinion
Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider the circumstances in which the Constitution requires that an indictment be
dismissed because of delay between the commission of an offense and the initiation of prosecution.
I
On March 6, 1975, respondent was indicted for possessing eight firearms stolen from the United States mails, and for dealing
in firearms without a license. The offenses were alleged to have occurred between July 25 and August 31, 1973, more than 18
months before the indictment was filed. Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment due to the delay.
The District Court conducted a hearing on respondent's motion at which the respondent sought to prove that the delay was
unnecessary and that it had prejudiced his defense. In an effort to establish the former proposition, respondent presented a Postal
Inspector's report on his investigation that was prepared one month after the crimes were committed, *785 and a stipulation
concerning the post-report progress of the probe. The report stated, in brief, that within the first month of the investigation
respondent had admitted to Government agents that he had possessed and then sold five of the stolen guns, and that the agents
had developed strong evidence linking respondent to the remaining three weapons.
1
The report also stated, however, that the
agents had been unable to confirm or refute respondent's claim that he had found the guns in his car when he returned to it after
visiting his son, a mail handler, at work.
2
The stipulation into which the Assistant United States Attorney entered indicated that
little additional information concerning the crimes was uncovered in the 17 months following the preparation of the Inspector's
report.
3
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
1
The report indicated that the person to whom respondent admitted selling five guns had told Government agents that respondent had
actually sold him eight guns which he, in turn, had sold to one Martin Koehnken. The report also indicated that Koehnken had sold
three of these guns to undercover federal agents and that a search of his house had uncovered four others. Finally the report stated
that the eighth gun was sold by one David Northdruft (or Northdurft) to Government agents, and that Northdruft claimed Koehnken
had sold him the gun.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, respondent for the first time admitted that he had possessed and sold eight guns.
2
The only contrary evidence came from respondent's purchaser who told the Government investigators that he knew the guns were
hot.
3
In March 1975, the Inspector learned of another person who claimed to have purchased a gun from respondent. App. 18. At the
hearing the parties disagreed as to whether this evidence would have been admissible since it did not involve any of the guns to which
the indictment related. Id., at 9-10. In any event, the Assistant United States Attorney stated that the decision to prosecute was made
before this additional piece of evidence was received. Id., at 19.
To establish prejudice to the defense, respondent testified that he had lost the testimony of two material witnesses due to the
delay. The first witness, Tom Stewart, died more than a year after the alleged crimes occurred. At the hearing *786 respondent
claimed that Stewart had been his source for two or three of the guns. The second witness, respondent's brother, died in April
1974, eight months after the crimes were completed. Respondent testified that his brother was present when respondent called
Stewart to secure the guns, and witnessed all of respondent's sales. Respondent did not state how the witnesses would **2047
have aided the defense had they been willing to testify.
4
4
Respondent admitted that he had not mentioned Stewart to the Postal Inspector when he was questioned about his source of the guns.
He explained that this was because Stewart was a bad tomato and was liable to take a shot at me if I told (on) him. Id., at 13.
Respondent also conceded that he did not mention either his brother's or Stewart's illness or death to the Postal Inspector on the
several occasions in which respondent called the Inspector to inquire about the status of the probe.
The Government made no systematic effort in the District Court to explain its long delay. The Assistant United States Attorney
did expressly disagree, however, with defense counsel's suggestion that the investigation had ended after the Postal Inspector's
report was prepared. App. 9-10. The prosecutor also stated that it was the Government's theory that respondent's son, who had
access to the mail at the railroad terminal from which the guns were possibly stolen, id., at 17, was responsible for the thefts,
id., at 13.
5
Finally, the prosecutor elicited somewhat cryptic testimony from the Postal Inspector indicating that the case as
to these particular weapons involves other individuals; that information had been presented to a grand jury in regard to this
case other than . . . (on) the day of the indictment itself; and that he had spoken to the prosecutors about the case on four or
five occasions. Id., at 20.
5
The Inspector's report had stated that there was no evidence establishing the son's responsibility for the thefts.
Following the hearing, the District Court filed a brief opinion and order. The court found that by October 2, 1973, the date
of the Postal Inspector's report, the Government had *787 all the information relating to defendant's alleged commission of
the offenses charged against him, and that the 17-month delay before the case was presented to the grand jury had not been
explained or justified and was unnecessary and unreasonable. The court also found that (a)s a result of the delay defendant
has been prejudiced by reason of the death of Tom Stewart, a material witness on his behalf. Pet. for Cert. 14a. Accordingly,
the court dismissed the indictment.
[1] (1) The Government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In its brief the Government
explained the months of inaction by stating:
(T)here was a legitimate Government interest in keeping the investigation open in the instant case. The defendant's son worked
for the Terminal Railroad and had access to mail. It was the Government's position that the son was responsible for the theft
and therefore further investigation to establish this fact was important.
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
. . . Although the investigation did not continue on a full time basis, there was contact between the United States Attorney's
office and the Postal Inspector's office throughout . . . and certain matters were brought before a Federal Grand Jury prior to
the determination that the case should be presented for indictment . . . . Brief for United States in No. 75-1852 (CA8), pp. 5-6.
The Court of Appeals accepted the Government's representation as to the motivation for the delay, but a majority of the
court nevertheless affirmed the District Court's finding that the Government's actions were unjustified, unnecessary, and
unreasonable. 532 F.2d 59, 61 (1976). The majority also found that respondent had established that his defense had been
impaired by the loss of Stewart's testimony because it understood respondent to contend that were Stewart's testimony available
it would support (respondent's) claim that he did not know that the guns were stolen from the United States *788 mails. Ibid.
The court therefore affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the three possession counts by a divided vote.
6
6
The court unanimously reversed the dismissal of a fourth count of the indictment charging respondent with dealing in firearms without
a license since respondent had not alleged that the missing witnesses could have provided exculpatory evidence on this charge.
**2048 We granted certiorari, 429 U.S. 884, 97 S.Ct. 233, 50 L.Ed.2d 164, and now reverse.
7
7
In addition to challenging the Court of Appeals' holding on the constitutional issue, the United States argues that the District Court
should have deferred action on the motion to dismiss until after trial, at which time it could have assessed any prejudice to the
respondent in light of the events at trial. This argument, however, was not raised in the District Court or in the Court of Appeals.
Absent exceptional circumstances, we will not review it here. See, e. g., Duignan v. United States, 274 U.S. 195, 200, 47 S.Ct. 566,
568, 71 L.Ed. 996 (1927); Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U.S. 317, 330, 87 S.Ct. 1072, 1080, 18 L.Ed.2d 75 (1967).
At oral argument, the Government seemed to suggest that its failure to raise the procedural question in its brief in the Court of Appeals
should be excused because the proceedings in that court were skewed by the fact that the District Court had based its dismissal
solely on Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 48(b), and because the issue was raised by the Government in its petition for rehearing. Tr. of Oral
Arg. 7-8, 51. But even assuming that the basis for the District Court's dismissal could have skewed appellate proceedings regarding
the procedural question, the fact is that the opening paragraph of the argument in the Government's brief below recognized that the
only issue before the court was a due process question, and the remainder of the brief treated that question on the merits. And even
after the Court of Appeals issued its decision based solely on the Due Process Clause, the Government's petition for rehearing did
not squarely raise the procedural issue as an alternative ground for rehearing the case en banc.
II
[2] [3] (2, 3) In United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), this Court considered the
significance, for constitutional purposes, of a lengthy preindictment delay. We held that as far as the Speedy Trial Clause of the
Sixth Amendment is concerned, such delay is wholly irrelevant, since our analysis of the language, history, and purposes of the
Clause persuaded us that only a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to
answer a criminal charge . . . engage the particular protections of *789 that provision. Id., at 320, 92 S.Ct., at 463.
8
We went
on to note that statutes of limitations, which provide predictable, legislatively enacted limits on prosecutorial delay, provide
the primary guarantee, against bringing overly stale criminal charges. Id., at 322, 92 S.Ct., at 464, quoting United States v.
Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 122, 86 S.Ct. 773, 777, 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966). But we did acknowledge that the statute of limitations
does not fully define (defendants') rights with respect to the events occurring prior to indictment, 404 U.S., at 324, 92 S.Ct.,
at 465, and that the Due Process Clause has a limited role to play in protecting against oppressive delay.
8
Marion also holds that Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 48(b), which permits district courts to dismiss indictments due to preindictment or
postindictment delay, is limited to post-arrest situations. 404 U.S., at 319, 92 S.Ct., at 462. Since respondent was not arrested until
after he was indicted, the District Court plainly erred in basing its decision on this Rule.
[4] (4) Respondent seems to argue that due process bars prosecution whenever a defendant suffers prejudice as a result of
preindictment delay. To support that proposition respondent relies on the concluding sentence of the Court's opinion in Marion
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
where, in remanding the case, we stated that (e)vents of the trial may demonstrate actual prejudice, but at the present time
appellees' due process claims are speculative and premature. Id., at 326, 92 S.Ct., at 466. But the quoted sentence establishes
only that proof of actual prejudice makes a due process claim concrete and ripe for adjudication, not that it makes the claim
automatically valid. Indeed, two pages earlier in the opinion we expressly rejected the argument respondent advances here:
(W)e need not . . . determine when and in what circumstances actual prejudice resulting from preaccusation delays requires
the dismissal of the prosecution. Actual *790 prejudice to the defense of a criminal case may result from the shortest and
most necessary delay; and no one suggests that every delay-caused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal
prosecution. Id., at 324-325, 92 S.Ct., at 465. (Footnotes omitted.)
Thus Marion makes clear that proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient **2049 element of a due process
claim, and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused.
[5] [6] (5, 6) The Court of Appeals found that the sole reason for the delay here was a hope on the part of the Government
that others might be discovered who may have participated in the theft . . . . 532 F.2d, at 61. It concluded that this hope did not
justify the delay, and therefore affirmed the dismissal of the indictment. But the Due Process Clause does not permit courts to
abort criminal prosecutions simply because they disagree with a prosecutor's judgment as to when to seek an indictment. Judges
are not free, in defining due process, to impose on law enforcement officials our personal and private notions of fairness
and to disregard the limits that bind judges in their judicial function. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 170, 72 S.Ct. 205,
209, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). Our task is more circumscribed. We are to determine only whether the action complained of here,
compelling respondent to stand trial after the Government delayed indictment to investigate further violates those fundamental
conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55
S.Ct. 340, 342, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935), and which define the community's sense of fair play and decency, Rochin v. California,
supra, 342 U.S., at 173, 72 S.Ct. at 210. See also Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 526, 93 S.Ct. 848, 850, 35 L.Ed.2d 46
(1973); Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S.Ct. 280, 289, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941); Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312,
316, 47 S.Ct. 103, 104, 71 L.Ed. 270 (1926); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 535, 4 S.Ct. 111, 120, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884).
[7] (7) It requires no extended argument to establish that prosecutors do not deviate from fundamental conceptions of
*791 justice when they defer seeking indictments until they have probable cause to believe an accused is guilty; indeed it is
unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor to recommend an indictment on less than probable cause.
9
It should be equally obvious
that prosecutors are under no duty to file charges as soon as probable cause exists but before they are satisfied they will be able
to establish the suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To impose such a duty would have a deleterious effect both upon the
rights of the accused and upon the ability of society to protect itself, United States v. Ewell, supra, 383 U.S., at 120, 86 S.Ct.,
at 776. From the perspective of potential defendants, requiring prosecutions to commence when probable cause is established
is undesirable because it would increase the likelihood of unwarranted charges being filed, and would add to the time during
which defendants stand accused but untried.
10
These costs are by no means insubstantial since, as we recognized in Marion, a
formal accusation may interfere with the defendant's liberty, . . . disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail
his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends. 404 U.S., at 320, 92
S.Ct., at 463. From the perspective of law enforcement officials, a requirement of immediate prosecution upon probable cause
is equally unacceptable because it could make obtaining proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt impossible *792 by causing
potentially fruitful sources of information **2050 to evaporate before they are fully exploited.
11
And from the standpoint
of the courts, such a requirement is unwise because it would cause scarce resources to be consumed on cases that prove to be
insubstantial, or that involve only some of the responsible parties or some of the criminal acts.
12
Thus, no one's interests would
be well served by compelling prosecutors to initiate prosecutions as soon as they are legally entitled to do so.
13
9
ABA Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-103(A) (1969); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution
Function s 3.9 (App. Draft 1971).
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
10
To the extent that the period between accusation and trial has been strictly limited by legislative action, see, e. g., Speedy Trial Act of
1974, 88 Stat. 2076, 18 U.S.C. s 3161 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), compelling immediate prosecutions upon probable cause would not
add to the time during which defendants stand accused, but would create a risk of guilty persons escaping punishment simply because
the Government was unable to move from probable cause to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the short time available to it. Even
absent a statute, of course, the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment imposes restraints on the length of post-accusation delay.
11
Cf. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 431, 96 S.Ct. 820, 831, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring) (Good police
practice often requires postponing an arrest, even after probable cause has been established, in order to place the suspect under
surveillance or otherwise develop further evidence necessary to prove guilt to a jury).
12
Defendants also would be adversely affected by trials involving less than all of the criminal acts for which they are responsible, since
they likely would be subjected to multiple trials growing out of the same transaction or occurrence.
13
See also Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 310, 87 S.Ct. 408, 417, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966), quoted in United States v. Marion,
404 U.S., at 325 n. 18, 92 S.Ct., at 465 n. 18:
There is no constitutional right to be arrested. The police are not required to guess at their peril the precise moment at which they
have probable cause to arrest a suspect, risking a violation of the Fourth Amendment if they act too soon, and a violation of the Sixth
Amendment if they wait too long. Law enforcement officers are under no constitutional duty to call a halt to a criminal investigation
the moment they have the minimum evidence to establish probable cause, a quantum of evidence which may fall far short of the
amount necessary to support a criminal conviction.
[8] (8) It might be argued that once the Government has assembled sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, it should be constitutionally required to file charges promptly, even if its investigation of the entire criminal transaction
is not complete. Adopting such a rule, however, would have many of the same consequences as adopting a rule requiring
immediate prosecution upon probable cause.
First, compelling a prosecutor to file public charges as soon as the requisite proof has been developed against one *793
participant on one charge would cause numerous problems in those cases in which a criminal transaction involves more than one
person or more than one illegal act. In some instances, an immediate arrest or indictment would impair the prosecutor's ability
to continue his investigation, thereby preventing society from bringing lawbreakers to justice. In other cases, the prosecutor
would be able to obtain additional indictments despite an early prosecution, but the necessary result would be multiple trials
involving a single set of facts. Such trials place needless burdens on defendants, law enforcement officials, and courts.
Second, insisting on immediate prosecution once sufficient evidence is developed to obtain a conviction would pressure
prosecutors into resolving doubtful cases in favor of early and possibly unwarranted prosecutions. The determination of when
the evidence available to the prosecution is sufficient to obtain a conviction is seldom clear-cut, and reasonable persons often
will reach conflicting conclusions. In the instant case, for example, since respondent admitted possessing at least five of the
firearms, the primary factual issue in dispute was whether respondent knew the guns were stolen as required by 18 U.S.C. s
1708. Not surprisingly, the Postal Inspector's report contained no direct evidence bearing on this issue. The decision whether to
prosecute, therefore, required a necessarily subjective evaluation of the strength of the circumstantial evidence available and the
credibility of respondent's denial. Even if a prosecutor concluded that the case was weak and further investigation appropriate,
he would have no assurance that a reviewing court would agree. To avoid the risk that a subsequent indictment would be
dismissed for preindictment delay, the prosecutor might feel constrained to file premature charges, with all the disadvantages
that would entail.
14
14
In addition, if courts were required to decide in every case when the prosecution should have commenced, it would be necessary
for them to trace the day-by-day progress of each investigation. Maintaining daily records would impose an administrative burden
on prosecutors, and reviewing them would place an even greater burden on the courts. See also United States v. Marion, supra, at
321 n. 13, 92 S.Ct., at 464.
*794 **2051 Finally, requiring the Government to make charging decisions immediately upon assembling evidence
sufficient to establish guilt would preclude the Government from giving full consideration to the desirability of not prosecuting
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
in particular cases. The decision to file criminal charges, with the awesome consequences it entails, requires consideration of
a wide range of factors in addition to the strength of the Government's case, in order to determine whether prosecution would
be in the public interest.
15
Prosecutors often need more information than proof of a suspect's guilt, therefore, before deciding
whether to seek an indictment. Again the instant case provides a useful illustration. Although proof of the identity of the mail
thieves was not necessary to convict respondent of the possessory crimes with which he was charged, it might have been crucial
in assessing respondent's culpability, as distinguished from his legal guilt. If, for example, further investigation were to show
that respondent had no role in or advance knowledge of the theft and simply *795 agreed, out of paternal loyalty, to help his
son dispose of the guns once respondent discovered his son had stolen them, the United States Attorney might have decided
not to prosecute, especially since at the time of the crime respondent was over 60 years old and had no prior criminal record.
16
Requiring prosecution once the evidence of guilt is clear, however, could prevent a prosecutor from awaiting the information
necessary for such a decision.
15
See, e. g., The Prosecution Function, supra, n. 9, at s 3.9(b):
The prosecutor is not obliged to present all charges which the evidence might support. The prosecutor may in some circumstances
and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that evidence may exist which would
support a conviction. Illustrative of the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising his discretion are:
(i) the prosecutor's reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty;
(ii) the extent of the harm caused by the offense;
(iii) the disproportion of the authorized punishment in relation to the particular offense or the offender;
(iv) possible improper motives of a complainant;
(v) reluctance of the victim to testify;
(vi) cooperation of the accused in the apprehension or conviction of others;
(vii) availability and likelihood of prosecution by another jurisdiction.
16
Of course, in this case further investigation proved unavailing and the United States Attorney ultimately decided to prosecute based
solely on the Inspector's report. But this fortuity cannot transform an otherwise permissible delay into an impermissible one.
[9] (9) We would be most reluctant to adopt a rule which would have these consequences absent a clear constitutional command
to do so. We can find no such command in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In our view, investigative delay is
fundamentally unlike delay undertaken by the Government solely to gain tactical advantage over the accused, United States
v. Marion, 404 U.S., at 324, 92 S.Ct., at 465, precisely because investigative delay is not so one-sided.
17
Rather than deviating
from elementary standards of fair play and decency, a prosecutor abides by them if he refuses to seek indictments until he is
completely satisfied that he should prosecute and will be able promptly to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Penalizing
prosecutors who defer action for these reasons would subordinate the goal of orderly expedition to that of mere speed,
*796 Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1, 10, 79 S.Ct. 991, 997, 3 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1959). This the Due Process Clause does not
require. We therefore hold that to **2052 prosecute a defendant following investigative delay does not deprive him of due
process, even if his defense might have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time.
17
In Marion we noted with approval that the Government conceded that a tactical delay would violate the Due Process Clause.
The Government renews that concession here, Brief for United States 32, and expands it somewhat by stating: A due process
violation might also be made out upon a showing of prosecutorial delay incurred in reckless disregard of circumstances, known to
the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the ability to mount an effective defense,
id., at 32-33, n. 25. As the Government notes, however, there is no evidence of recklessness here.
[10] (10) In the present case, the Court of Appeals stated that the only reason the Government postponed action was to
await the results of additional investigation. Although there is, unfortunately, no evidence concerning the reasons for the delay
in the record, the court's finding is supported by the prosecutor's implicit representation to the District Court, and explicit
representation to the Court of Appeals, that the investigation continued during the time that the Government deferred taking
action against respondent. The finding is, moreover, buttressed by the Government's repeated assertions in its petition for
certiorari, its brief, and its oral argument in this Court, that the delay was caused by the government's efforts to identify persons
in addition to respondent who may have participated in the offenses. Pet. for Cert. 14.
18
We must assume that these statements
by counsel have been made in good faith. In light of this explanation, it follows that compelling respondent to stand trial would
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
not be fundamentally unfair. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in affirming the District Court's decision dismissing the
indictment.
18
See also Pet. for Cert. 4, 8; Brief for United States 3, 8, 38; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, 7, 10, 47.
III
[11] (11) In Marion we conceded that we could not determine in the abstract the circumstances in which preaccusation delay
would require dismissing prosecutions. 404 U.S., at 324, 92 S.Ct., at 465. More than five years later, that statement remains true.
Indeed, in the intervening years so few defendants have established that they were prejudiced by delay that neither this Court
*797 nor any lower court has had a sustained opportunity to consider the constitutional significance of various reasons for
delay.
19
We therefore leave to the lower courts, in the first instance, the task of applying the settled principles of due process
that we have discussed to the particular circumstances of individual cases. We simply hold that in this case the lower courts
erred in dismissing the indictment.
19
Professor Amsterdam has catalogued some of the noninvestigative reasons for delay:
(P)roof of the offense may depend upon the testimony of an undercover informer who maintains his cover for a period of time
before surfacing to file charges against one or more persons with whom he has dealt while disguised. . . . (I)f there is more than one
possible charge against a suspect, some of them may be held back pending the disposition of others, in order to avoid the burden upon
the prosecutor's office of handling charges that may turn out to be unnecessary to obtain the degree of punishment that the prosecutor
seeks. There are many other motives for delay, of course, including some sinister ones, such as a desire to postpone the beginning
of defense investigation, or the wish to hold a club over the defendant.
Additional reasons for delay may be partly or completely beyond the control of the prosecuting authorities. Offenses may not
be immediately reported; investigation may not immediately identify the offender; an identified offender may not be immediately
apprehendable. . . . (A)n indictment may be delayed for weeks or even months until the impaneling of the next grand jury. It is
customary to think of these delays as natural and inevitable . . . but various prosecutorial decisions such as the assignment of manpower
and priorities among investigations of known offenses may also affect the length of such delays. Speedy Criminal Trial: Rights and
Remedies, 27 Stan.L.Rev. 525, 527-728 (1975).
See also Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 45-46, n. 9, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 1572-1573, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970) (BRENNAN, J., concurring).
Reversed.
Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting.
If the record presented the question which the Court decides today, I would join its well-reasoned opinion. I am unable *798
to do so because I believe our review should be limited to the facts disclosed by the record developed in the District Court and
the traditional scope of review we have exercised with regard to issues of fact.
**2053 After a thorough hearing on the respondent's motion to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial preindictment delay a
hearing at which both sides were given every opportunity to submit evidence concerning the question the District Court found
that (t)he Government's delay ha(d) not been explained or justified and (was) unnecessary and unreasonable. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals concurred, noting that the District Court's determination was supported by the evidence. 532 F.2d 59, 60-61
(CA8 1976). These concurrent findings of fact make it improper, in my judgment, for this Court to make its own determination
that the Government postponed action . . . to await the results of additional investigation, ante, at 2052.
1
1
It is a settled rule of this Court that we will not review concurrent findings of fact by two courts in the absence of a very obvious
and exceptional showing of error. Berenyi v. Immigration Director, 385 U.S. 630, 635, 87 S.Ct. 666, 670, 17 L.Ed.2d 656, citing
Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U.S. 271, 275, 69 S.Ct. 535, 537, 93 L.Ed. 672. Mr. Justice Jackson has called this a seasoned
and wise rule . . . . Comstock v. Group of Investors, 335 U.S. 211, 214, 68 S.Ct. 1454, 1456, 92 L.Ed. 1911.
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
That determination is not supported by the record.
2
The *799 majority opinion correctly points out that there was no evidence
concerning the reasons for delay in the record, and yet proceeds to accept as fact the representations in the Government's
briefs to the Court of Appeals and to this Court that the delay was caused by the government's efforts to identify persons
in addition to respondent who may have participated in the offenses. Ibid. This finding of a continuing investigation, which
forms the foundation of the majority opinion, comes from statements of counsel made during the appellate process. As we
have said of other unsworn statements which were not part of the record and therefore could not have been considered by the
trial court: Manifestly, (such statements) cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of (a) case. Adickes v. Kress
& Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157-158, n. 16, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, n. 16, 26 L.Ed.2d 142. While I do not question the good faith of
Government counsel, it is not the business of appellate courts to make decisions on the basis of unsworn matter not incorporated
in a formal record.
2
An examination of the transcript of the District Court hearing reveals that the Government produced no evidence as to why the
indictment was delayed. The Government stipulated that it proceeded before the grand jury only on evidence collected some 17
months before the presentation and that no additional evidence had caused it to proceed. Although the Court of Appeals surmised
that (n)o reason existed for the delay except a hope on the part of the Government that others might be discovered who may have
participated in the theft(s) . . ., 532 F.2d, at 61, even this assumption is not borne out by the record of the District Court hearing.
Although not under oath, the prosecuting attorney indicated that the Government theorized that the guns in question came from the
respondent's son, who worked at a freight terminal and would have had access to the mails. Yet even this theory was never shown
to be the cause of the delay. Not even the prosecuting attorney stated as much.
The findings of the District Court, as approved by the Court of Appeals, establish four relevant propositions: (1) this is a routine
prosecution; (2) after the Government assembled all of the evidence on which it expects to establish respondent's guilt, it waited
almost 18 months to seek an indictment; (3) the delay was prejudicial to respondent's defense; and (4) no reason whatsoever
explains the delay. We may reasonably infer that the prosecutor was merely busy with other matters that he considered more
important than this case.
The question presented by those facts is not an easy one. Nevertheless, unless we are to conclude that the Constitution imposes
no constraints on the prosecutor's power to postpone the filing of formal charges to suit his own convenience, I believe we must
affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. A contrary position can be tenable only if one assumes that the constitutional right
to a fair hearing includes no right *800 whatsoever to a prompt hearing. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 91, 97 S.Ct. 274,
281, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The requirement of speedy justice has been **2054 part of the Anglo-American
common-law tradition since the Magna Carta. See id., at 92 n. 5, 97 S.Ct., at 281. It came to this country and was embodied
in the early state constitutions, see the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Part I, Art. XI, and later in the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. As applied to this case, in which respondent made numerous anxious inquiries of the Postal
Inspectors concerning whether he would be indicted, in which the delay caused substantial prejudice to the respondent, and in
which the Government has offered no justification for the delay, the right to speedy justice should be honored.
If that right is not honored in a case of this kind, the basic values which the Framers intended to protect by the Sixth Amendment's
guarantee of a speedy trial, and which motivated Congress to enact the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, will become nothing more
than managerial considerations for the prosecutor to manipulate.
I respectfully dissent.
Parallel Citations
97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752
End of Document 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783
Filings (3)
Title PDF Court Date Type
1. Brief for Respondent
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Eugene LOVASCO, Sr.,
Respondent.
1977 WL 189843
U.S. Jan. 31, 1977 Brief
2. Brief for Respondent
United States v. Lovasco
1977 WL 204759
U.S. Jan. 31, 1977 Brief
3. Brief for the United States
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. Eugene
LOVASCO, Sr.
1976 WL 181715
U.S. Dec. 30, 1976 Brief
History (4)
Direct History (4)
1. U.S. v. Lovasco
532 F.2d 59 , 8th Cir.(Mo.) , Feb. 23, 1976
Certiorari Granted by
2. U.S. v. Lovasco
429 U.S. 884 , U.S.Mo. , Oct. 12, 1976
AND Judgment Reversed by
3. U. S. v. Lovasco
431 U.S. 783 , U.S.Mo. , Jun. 09, 1977
Rehearing Denied by
4. U.S. v. Lovasco
434 U.S. 881 , U.S.Mo. , Oct. 03, 1977
Denying
Rehearing
Granting
Certiorari
B
U. S. v. Lovasco
431 U.S. 783 | Jun 09, 1977
U.S.Mo.
Reversing Judgment A
A
U.S. v. Lovasco
532 F.2d 59 | Feb 23, 1976
8th Cir.(Mo.)
U
.
S
.

S
u
p
r
e
m
e

C
o
u
r
t
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

C
o
u
r
t
T
r
i
a
l
C
o
u
r
t
Citing References (500)
Treatment Title Date Type Depth Headnote(s)
Not Followed
as Dicta
1. U.S. v. Orum
2012 WL 5382843, *1+ , M.D.Ala. , (NO. CRIM.A.
2:12CR57-MHT )
Defendant Vonecia Orum has been charged in a
28count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the
United States and aiding the filing of a false tax
return. This matter is now before...
Nov. 02, 2012 Case
2
3
6
S.Ct.
Declined to
Extend by
2. People v. Frazer
88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312, 335+ , Cal. , (NO. S067443 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sex Offenses. Statute that
revived otherwise time-barred child sex offenses
was not ex post facto law.
Aug. 30, 1999 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
3. U.S. v. Santiago
2013 WL 6690303, *17+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 13 CR
039 CM )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Indictment and Information.
Pre-indictment delay warranted dismissal of
indictment charging reckless assault for service
member's accidental shooting in Iraq.
Dec. 19, 2013 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
4. State v. McGuire
786 N.W.2d 227, 237+ , Wis. , (NO. 2007AP2711-
CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Trial. Indecent behavior
with child prosecution commenced 36 years after
offense was not barred by due process.
Jul. 20, 2010 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
5. U.S. v. Sanders
452 F.3d 572, 577+ , 6th Cir.(Ohio) , (NO. 04-4540 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sentencing. Resentencing
four years after release from erroneously short
sentence did not violate procedural due process.
Jun. 29, 2006 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
6. U.S. v. MacDonald
632 F.2d 258, 260+ , 4th Cir.(N.C.) , (NO. 79-5253 )
Defendant was convicted before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, at Raleigh, Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Chief
Judge, of the second-degree...
Jul. 29, 1980 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
7. U.S. v. McKoy
129 Fed.Appx. 815, 818+ , 4th Cir.(Md.) , (NO.
03-4215 )
Delay in filing indictment did not warrant dismissal
of indictment.
Apr. 29, 2005 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
8. Howell v. Barker
904 F.2d 889, 894+ , 4th Cir.(N.C.) , (NO. 88-7106 )
Prisoner whose conviction had been affirmed by the
North Carolina Court of Appeals, 67 N.C.App. 763,
314 S.E.2d 147, (unpublished opinion), filed petition
for writ of habeas corpus...
May 24, 1990 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
9. U.S. v. Automated Medical Laboratories,
Inc.
770 F.2d 399, 403+ , 4th Cir.(Va.) , (NO.
84-5152(L) )
Defendant was convicted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.
Dortch Warriner, J., of conspiracy and making and
using false documents in a...
Aug. 15, 1985 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
10. U.S. v. Crouch
84 F.3d 1497, 1506+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.) , (NO.
93-7719 )
Defendants charged with bank fraud moved to
dismiss on grounds of preindictment delay. The
United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Samuel B. Kent, J.,...
May 30, 1996 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
11. U.S. v. Brand
556 F.2d 1312, 1316+ , 5th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
76-3202 )
District Court for the Northern District of Florida at
Tallahassee, William H. Stafford, J., for possession
of cocaine hydrochloride...
Aug. 05, 1977 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
12. U.S. v. Brown
959 F.2d 63, 65+ , 6th Cir.(Tenn.) , (NO. 91-5447 )
Defendant was convicted of carrying firearm during
commission of crime of violence for which he could
be prosecuted in federal court and for possession of
weapon by convicted felon...
Mar. 19, 1992 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
13. U.S. v. Greene
737 F.2d 572, 574+ , 6th Cir.(Ky.) , (NO. 83-5860 )
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
Scott Reed, J., and defendant appealed. The Court
of Appeals, Harry Phillips,...
Jun. 26, 1984 Case
3
8
9
S.Ct.
Examined by 14. Wilson v. McCaughtry
994 F.2d 1228, 1233+ , 7th Cir.(Wis.) , (NO.
90-1017 )
Defendant petitioned for habeas corpus relief
challenging his state court conviction for second-
degree murder after the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
149 Wis.2d. 878, 440 N.W.2d 534,...
May 20, 1993 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
15. U.S. v. King
593 F.2d 269, 271+ , 7th Cir.(Ill.) , (NO. 78-1818 )
The United States appealed from an order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, Frank J. McGarr, District
Judge, dismissing...
Feb. 23, 1979 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
16. U.S. v. Juarez
561 F.2d 65, 67+ , 7th Cir.(Ind.) , (NO. 76-1552 )
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Allen Sharp, J., of distributing heroin, and he
appealed. The Court of...
Aug. 15, 1977 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
17. U.S. v. Bartlett
794 F.2d 1285, 1289+ , 8th Cir.(S.D.) , (NO.
85-5114 )
Federal indictment charging defendant with assault
with intent to commit rape in Indian country was
dismissed by the United States District Court for the
District of South Dakota,...
Jun. 20, 1986 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
18. U.S. v. Singer
687 F.2d 1135, 1143+ , 8th Cir.(Minn.) , (NO.
81-1654 , 81-1673 , 81-1677 , 81-1678 , 81-1679 )
Defendants were convicted in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Miles W.
Lord, Chief Judge, of drug-related offenses, and
they appealed. The Court of...
Aug. 25, 1982 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
19. U.S. v. Moran
759 F.2d 777, 780+ , 9th Cir.(Wash.) , (NO.
83-1295 , 83-3101 )
Defendant was indicted for his alleged role in a
drug conspiracy. The United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Donald S.
Voorhees, J., dismissed 16...
May 03, 1985 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
20. U.S. v. Walker
601 F.2d 1051, 1055+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
78-3340 )
The United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Laughlin E. Waters, J., granted
defendants' motion to dismiss indictment on ground
that 13-month...
Aug. 01, 1979 Case
3
8
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
21. Arnold v. McCarthy
566 F.2d 1377, 1381+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
76-1421 )
State appealed from an order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California,
William P. Gray, J., granting writ of habeas corpus.
The Court of Appeals,...
Jan. 13, 1978 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
22. U.S. v. Benson
846 F.2d 1338, 1340+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
86-5817 )
Defendant convicted by jury in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
No. 85974CR-JWK, James W. Kehoe, J., of
conspiracy to import heroin and...
Jun. 14, 1988 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
23. Stoner v. Graddick
751 F.2d 1535, 1540+ , 11th Cir.(Ala.) , (NO.
83-7535 )
Defendant who had been convicted in state court
of unlawfully exploding dynamite dangerously
near dwelling house filed federal petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The United...
Jan. 16, 1985 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
24. Reed v. Schriro
2007 WL 521016, *7+ , D.Ariz. , (NO. CV 04-2755
PHXJAT )
On December 3, 2004, Petitioner filed the currently
pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #
1). On April 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and...
Feb. 14, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
25. Marshall v. McEwen
2013 WL 6439387, *26+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. CV
11-2680-SJO JEM )
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has
reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and the
Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge. Petitioner...
Dec. 06, 2013 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
26. Perez v. Cate
2013 WL 6056473, *17+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. ED CV
12-01675-PSG )
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has
reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Petition), the records and files herein, and the
Report and Recommendation of the...
Nov. 14, 2013 Case
6
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
27. Wessels v. Gower
2013 WL 5705600, *13+ , S.D.Cal. , (NO.
13CV0819 GPC RBB )
Petitioner Jeremy Allen Wessels, a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2254, challenges his...
Oct. 18, 2013 Case
5
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
28. Phillips v. Yates
2012 WL 2995675, *12+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. 2:10-
CV-1368 KJM JFM )
Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner stands convicted of two
counts of forcible...
Jul. 23, 2012 Case
5
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
29. Gaines v. McDonald
2012 WL 718663, *7+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. CIV
S-10-1716 KJM )
James C. Gaines, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se
with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2254. At issue is Gaines's 2007
conviction for the 1972 murder...
Mar. 05, 2012 Case
5
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
30. Clark v. Evans
2011 WL 489658, *7+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. CIV
S-08-1433 CHS P )
Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2254. The parties have consented to
jurisdiction by a United States...
Feb. 07, 2011 Case
5
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
31. Story v. Martel
2011 WL 90112, *4+ , N.D.Cal. , (NO. 10-
CV-00566-LHK )
This habeas action arises out of the 1976 murder
of Betty Vickers in her apartment in Mountain View,
California. Although Petitioner was arrested in
connection with Ms. Vickers's...
Jan. 10, 2011 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
32. New v. Uribe
2010 WL 7888557, *13+ , S.D.Cal. , (NO. 09-
CV-2609-JLS POR )
On November 18, 2009, Petitioner William Peter
New filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. 1.) First,
Petitioner contends he is entitled to...
Dec. 21, 2010 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by 33. George v. Terhune
2000 WL 1262649, *5+ , N.D.Cal. , (NO. C 99-3355
MJJ )
Petitioner Joe Lynn George petitions this Court for
a writ of habeas corpus. Having read the papers
submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set
forth below, the Court DENIES...
Aug. 24, 2000 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
34. U.S. v. Stoll
2011 WL 939251, *2+ , S.D.Fla. , (NO. 10-60194-
CR )
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant
Stoll's Motion to Dismiss for Prejudicial Pre
Indictment Delay and Incorporated Memorandum of
Law (DE 752). The motion was referred to...
Feb. 16, 2011 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
35. U.S. v. Sabath
990 F.Supp. 1007, 1013+ , N.D.Ill. , (NO. 97 CR
110 )
Defendant charged with arson and mail fraud
moved to dismiss the indictment. The District
Court, Castillo, J., held that defendant was entitled
to dismissal on grounds of...
Jan. 12, 1998 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
36. U.S. v. McMullin
511 F.Supp.2d 970, 977+ , N.D.Iowa , (NO.
CR07-4011-MWB )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Lesser Included Offenses.
Methamphetamine manufacturing offense was a
lesser included offense of a related offense.
Sep. 18, 2007 Case
3
8
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
37. U.S. v. Wendelsdorf
2005 WL 1323236, *4+ , N.D.Iowa , (NO.
CR04-4111-MWB )
The defendant Jesse John Wendelsdorf has
filed a motion (Doc. No. 21) seeking dismissal of
the Superseding Indictment on the basis of pre-
indictment delay. In the alternative,...
Jun. 03, 2005 Case
3
8
9
S.Ct.
Examined by 38. Slavens v. Crossman
1989 WL 79068, *5+ , D.Kan. , (NO. 86-1347-C )
This case is before the court on the summary
judgment motion of defendants Crossman,
Stemmerman and the City of Lawrence, Kansas
(Dk. 66, 67), and on the separate motion for...
Jun. 14, 1989 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
39. U.S. v. Bouthot
685 F.Supp. 286, 297+ , D.Mass. , (NO. CR.
87-293-WF )
Defendants charged with firearms violations moved
to dismiss. The District Court, Wolf, J., held
that: (1) prosecutions were not barred by double
jeopardy because of prior state...
Apr. 08, 1988 Case
5
10
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
40. U.S. v. Whitty
688 F.Supp. 48, 56+ , D.Me. , (NO. CR. 87-00054-
B )
Defendants, charged with offenses under bank
fraud statute, filed motions to dismiss, motion to
quash, and motion to suppress. The District Court,
Cyr, Chief Judge, held that:...
May 19, 1988 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
41. Bannasch v. Burt
2011 WL 6837562, *4+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. CIV.A.
09-11564 )
Petitioner Daniel Bannasch has filed a pro se
habeas corpus petition challenging his state
convictions for two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct. He claims that the...
Dec. 29, 2011 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
42. U.S. v. Castro-Ramirez
2009 WL 4950504, *2+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
09-20215 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Fraud. Pre-indictment
investigative delay was not undertaken by the
government to gain a tactical advantage over
physician.
Dec. 15, 2009 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
43. U.S. v. De Rong Shang
2012 WL 693031, *2+ , D.Nev. , (NO. 2:11-
CR-00110-RLH )
The defendant, De Rong Shang, is under indictment
on charges of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343),
conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U .S.C.
1349), and aiding and abetting (18...
Jan. 26, 2012 Case
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
44. U.S. v. Baxt
74 F.Supp.2d 425, 429+ , D.N.J. , (NO. 99-75 )
Defendant indicted for misrepresenting his financial
assets on loan applications moved to dismiss
indictment for preindictment delay. The District
Court, Orlofsky, J., held that:...
Oct. 26, 1999 Case
3
8
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
45. U.S. v. Cannistraro
800 F.Supp. 30, 51+ , D.N.J. , (NO. CR. A. 89-218 )
Defendants charged with racketeering activities
in violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to commit
racketeering in violation of RICO,...
Jul. 22, 1992 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
46. U.S. v. Santiago
966 F.Supp.2d 247, 266+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 13 CR
39 CM )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Confessions. A Marine Corps
corporal was not in custody for Miranda purposes
when he was interviewed by a superior officer.
Aug. 13, 2013 Case
4
S.Ct.
Examined by
47. U.S. v. Guerra
2012 WL 1899861, *2+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 10-CR-147
SLT )
Defendant Francis Guerra (Defendant) moves to
dismiss racketeering acts three and four of count
one of the instant indictment for pre-indictment
delay, requests that his trial be...
May 24, 2012 Case
4
5
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
48. U.S. v. Persico
2012 WL 1712520, *4+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 10-CR-147
S-4 SLT )
The fourth superceding indictment in this case (the
Instant Indictment) charges defendant Michael J.
Persico (Defendant) and several co-defendants
with, among other offenses, a...
May 15, 2012 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
49. U.S. v. Carbonaro
2004 WL 2222145, *1+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO.
S502CR743(RCC) )
Defendant Thomas Carbonaro was indicted for,
among other things, violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. Carbonaro...
Sep. 30, 2004 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
50. U.S. v. Gross
165 F.Supp.2d 372, 377+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 98 CR
159 (SJ) )
Ten-year pre-indictment delay violated due process.
Oct. 02, 2001 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
51. Hoff v. Kelly
1987 WL 10183, *1+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. CV-86-2332 )
The body of Kathryne Damm was found early
on Sunday morning, October 3, 1954, in Suffolk
County, New York. The police questioned petitioner
Rudolph John Hoff and others in the...
Apr. 13, 1987 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
52. U.S. v. Castellano
610 F.Supp. 1359, 1385+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. SSS 84
CR. 63 (ADS) )
Various motions were filed by 21 of 24 defendants
charged a 78count indictment, which included
two RICO counts involving 80 alleged acts of
racketeering, and 76 other counts...
Jun. 06, 1985 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
53. U.S. v. Stanzione
466 F.Supp. 838, 840+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 78 CR.
559 )
Defendant, charged with using extortionate means
to collect or to attempt to collect extensions of
credit, moved to dismiss indictment on ground that
its return more than three...
Mar. 01, 1979 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by 54. Langford v. Warden, Ross Correctional Inst.
2013 WL 459196, *6+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 2:12-
CV-0096 )
Petitioner Mark Langford, a state prisoner, has
filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. This case is before
the Court on the petition,...
Feb. 07, 2013 Case
2
4
S.Ct.
Examined by 55. Lenoir v. Warden, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility
886 F.Supp.2d 718, 724+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO.
3:09CV286 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Habeas Corpus. State
prisoner did not preserve federal habeas review of
prosecutorial misconduct claim.
Mar. 30, 2012 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by 56. Couch v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional
Inst.
2011 WL 1043471, *7+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 1:10-
CV-22 )
Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody at the
Lebanon Correctional Institution in Lebanon,
Ohio, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 with...
Feb. 24, 2011 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
57. U.S. v. Norris
501 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1095+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 2:06-
CR-243-JDH-NMK )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Deaths of
potential witnesses did not cause substantial
prejudice as required for dismissal based on pre-
indictment delay.
May 22, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
58. Bruce v. Bradshaw
2007 WL 1467131, *1+ , N.D.Ohio , (NO. 104 CV
0447 )
The Court takes under consideration Magistrate
Judge George J. Limbert's Report and
Recommendation advising that the instant petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28...
Mar. 28, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
59. U.S. v. Thompson
2005 WL 1115243, *1+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 2:04-
CR-00118 )
This matter is before the Court for consideration of
a motion to dismiss (Doc. # 19) filed by Defendant,
Daniel L. Thompson, and a memorandum contra
filed by United States. (Doc. #...
Apr. 25, 2005 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
60. U.S. v. Davis
231 F.Supp.2d 701, 707+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO.
CR-3-99-110(1) , CR-3-99-110(2) )
Six year delay in filing criminal charges did not
violate defendants' due process rights.
May 09, 2002 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
61. U.S. v. Couch
822 F.Supp. 457, 460+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO.
CR-1-93-033 (1&2) )
Defendants, who were police officers, moved to
dismiss indictment for violation of arrestee's civil
rights. The District Court, Spiegel, J., held that:
(1) two-part test...
May 24, 1993 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
62. Snyder v. Klem
2010 WL 2650498, *5+ , M.D.Pa. , (NO. CIV
3:CV-07-825 )
Keith E. Snyder, an inmate presently confined at the
State Correctional Institution, Mercer, Pennsylvania,
commenced this habeas corpus proceeding
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254....
Jul. 01, 2010 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
63. U.S. v. Holtz
1994 WL 750674, *2+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CR. A.
92-459 )
On August 13, 1992, the Government filed an
indictment against defendants Earl M. Holtz,
Meta B. Buttenheim, George Tomasic, Robert K.
Tameris, IJA, Inc., doing business as...
Feb. 06, 1994 Case
3
8
10
S.Ct.
Examined by 64. U.S. v. Mask
154 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1347+ , W.D.Tenn. , (NO.
99-20260 D )
Government did not intentionally delay indictment to
gain tactical advantage.
Jul. 09, 2001 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
65. U.S. v. Toushin
714 F.Supp. 1452, 1462+ , M.D.Tenn. , (NO.
3-88-00094 )
Government and defendants in prosecution for
mailing obscene and sexually explict material made
various pretrial motions. The District Court, John
T. Nixon, J., held that: (1)...
Apr. 21, 1989 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
66. U.S. v. Bollin
582 F.Supp. 339, 339+ , M.D.Tenn. , (NO. CRIM.
3-83-00157 )
Upon defendant's motion for dismissal of the
indictment, the District Court, Neese, J., held
that defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of
indictment on ground of any delay of...
Aug. 03, 1983 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
67. U.S. v. Richburg
478 F.Supp. 535, 538+ , M.D.Tenn. , (NO. 76-82
NA-CR , 78-30182-NA-CR , 79-30024-NA-CR )
Defendants charged with conspiring to violate
federal mail fraud and wire fraud statutes moved
for dismissal of the indictments. The District Court,
Morton, Chief Judge, held...
Apr. 04, 1979 Case
8
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
68. U.S. v. Sample
565 F.Supp. 1166, 1169+ , E.D.Va. , (NO. CRIM.
82-00115-R )
Defendants charged with mail fraud moved for
dismissal of the indictment for preindictment delay.
The District Court, Warriner, J., held that twenty-
month preindictment delay,...
May 13, 1983 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
69. U.S. v. Benjamin
816 F.Supp. 373, 378+ , D.Virgin Islands , (NO.
CRIM. 90-172 )
Government filed motion to dismiss without
prejudice, and defendant filed motion to dismiss
with prejudice, indictment charging witness
tampering, which admittedly charged conduct...
Mar. 11, 1993 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
70. U.S. v. Adams
2007 WL 2050718, *5+ , A.F.Ct.Crim.App. , (NO.
ACM 36226 )
The appellant pled not guilty to all charges and
specifications. Appellant was convicted of being
absent without leave under Article 86, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. 886, and of three...
Jun. 20, 2007 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
71. U.S. v. Reed
41 M.J. 449, 452+ , U.S. Armed Forces , (NO.
94-6003 , CMR 94 0213 )
Accused moved to dismiss rape charge alleging
denial of speedy trial under the Fifth Amendment
due process clause. A general court-martial, T.P.
Tielens, J., granted the motion....
Mar. 22, 1995 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
72. U.S. v. Berrey
28 M.J. 714, 721+ , NMCMR , (NO. NMCM 882589
M )
Government appealed from order dismissing
charges at special court-martial due to denial of
speedy trial. The United States Navy-Marine
Corps Court of Military Review, Albertson,...
Mar. 08, 1989 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
73. State v. Droegemeier
2011 WL 3759683, *2+ , Ariz.App. Div. 2 , (NO. 2
CA-CR 2010-0308 )
1 In this prosecution for first-degree murder, the
superior court dismissed the indictment against
David Droegemeier before trial on due process
grounds related to pre-indictment...
Aug. 19, 2011 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
74. People v. Nelson
78 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 77+ , Cal. , (NO. S147051 )
Twenty-six year delay in charging defendant was
justified by new DNA evidence.
Jun. 16, 2008 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
75. People v. Jay
2002 WL 31661318, *2+ , Cal.App. 1 Dist. , (NO.
A095558 )
In murder prosecution, the Superior Court, Contra
Costa County, No. 5-000804-5, dismissed complaint
on ground that charging delay denied defendant his
constitutional right to due...
Nov. 26, 2002 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
76. People v. Price
211 Cal.Rptr. 642, 645+ , Cal.App. 2 Dist. , (NO.
CRIM. B004834 )
State appealed from order of the Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, David N. Fitts, J., dismissing
information charging defendant with acts of sexual
misconduct. The Court of...
Mar. 12, 1985 Case
8
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
77. Marrero v. State
428 So.2d 304, 306+ , Fla.App. 2 Dist. , (NO.
82-1158 )
After denial of his motion to dismiss information for
13-month prearrest delay, defendant was convicted
in the Circuit Court, Polk County, John H. Dewell, J.,
of conspiring to...
Mar. 09, 1983 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
78. People v. Gay
960 N.E.2d 1272, 1281+ , Ill.App. 4 Dist. , (NO.
4-10-0009 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Preindictment
delay of 34 months on charge for aggravated
battery of prison official did not violate defendant's
speedy trial rights.
Nov. 18, 2011 Case
3
5
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
79. Clark v. State
774 A.2d 1136, 1145+ , Md. , (NO. 102
SEPT.TERM 2000 )
There was no due process violation occasioned by
15 year pre-indictment delay.
Jun. 26, 2001 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
80. Whittlesey v. State
606 A.2d 225, 239+ , Md. , (NO. 78 SEPT. TERM,
1991 )
Defendant charged with murder sought to dismiss
indictment, alleging that it was barred by double
jeopardy principles since he had previously been
convicted on robbery and assault...
May 13, 1992 Case
7
8
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
81. People v. Mercer
752 N.W.2d 470, 473+ , Mich. , (NO. 135811 )
On May 7, 2008, the Court heard oral argument on
the application for leave to appeal the December
18, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals. On order
of the Court, the application...
Jul. 25, 2008 Case
6
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
82. People v. Adams
591 N.W.2d 44, 46+ , Mich.App. , (NO. 202665 ,
202666 )
Prearrest delay of 12 years did not violate
defendants' due process right to fair trial.
Oct. 09, 1998 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by 83. People v. Bisard
319 N.W.2d 670, 672+ , Mich.App. , (NO. 55203 )
The Muskegon Circuit Court, John H. Piercey, J.,
dismissed prosecution for delivery of less than 50
grams of cocaine on ground that defendant was
unduly prejudiced by the 196-day...
Apr. 06, 1982 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
84. State v. Goldman
317 S.E.2d 361, 364+ , N.C. , (NO. 354A83 )
Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court,
Wake County, Wiley Bowen, J., of first-degree
murder, under the felony-murder rule, and robbery
with a dangerous weapon, and he...
Jul. 06, 1984 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
85. State v. Davis
266 S.E.2d 20, 22+ , N.C.App. , (NO.
7926SC1153 )
Mecklenburg County, Ronald Barbee, J., of
narcotics offenses and he appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Harry C. Martin, J., held that,...
May 20, 1980 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
86. State v. Gonzales
794 P.2d 361, 363+ , N.M.App. , (NO. 10,736 )
Defendant was convicted in the District Court,
Bernalillo County, Rebecca Sitterly, D.J., of larceny
and conspiracy to commit larceny, and he appealed.
Mar. 27, 1990 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
87. People v. Singer
405 N.Y.S.2d 17, 24+ , N.Y.
Defendant was convicted before the Superior Court,
Suffolk County, Lawrence J. Bracken, J., of felony-
murder, and he appealed. The Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, 54 A.D.2d 915,...
Apr. 06, 1978 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
88. State v. Walker
2007 WL 2633791, *1+ , Ohio App. 10 Dist. , (NO.
06AP-810 )
{ 1} Claiming that the trial court erred by denying
his pretrial motion to dismiss criminal charges
against him, defendant-appellant, Michael Walker,
appeals from a judgment of...
Sep. 11, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
89. State v. Brown
98CA25 )
This is an appeal from the judgment of the
Washington County Court of Common Pleas, which
dismissed the charges against Defendant-Appellee
Carroll Brown due to pre-indictment...
Mar. 17, 2000 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
90. State v. Luck
47305 , 47306 )
Judgment affirmed
Nov. 23, 1983 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
91. Journal Entry and Opinion
State v. Lewis
2011 WL 9378009, *1+ , Ohio Com.Pl. (Trial
Order) , (NO. CR-543390 )
JOAN SYNENBERG, JUDGE: This cause came on
for hearing on April 5,2011 upon the defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Constitutional
Speedy Trial Rights filed on February...
Mar. 16, 2011 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Examined by
92. State v. Stokes
248 P.3d 953, 960+ , Or. , (NO. CA A129130 ,
CC040431760 , SC S057751 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Grand Jury. Adequate basis
supported resubmission of sexual assault charges
for which previous grand jury returned not true bill.
Mar. 10, 2011 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
93. State v. Davis
201 P.3d 185, 197+ , Or. , (NO. CC020633788 ,
SCS053071 )
Eleven-year period between date of murders and
date of defendant's indictment did not violate
defendant's due process rights.
Dec. 31, 2008 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
94. State v. Whitlow
--- P.3d ----+ , Or.App. , (NO. A149541 ,
CR090320 )
Background: Defendant was charged with multiple
counts of sexual abuse. After a first trial resulted in
a mistrial, the Circuit Court, Yamhill County, John L.
Collins, J., granted...
Apr. 23, 2014 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
95. Com. v. Scher
803 A.2d 1204, 1216+ , Pa. , (NO. 14 MAP 2000 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Homicide. Twenty-year delay
in charging defendant with murder did not violate
due process.
Aug. 20, 2002 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
96. Com. v. Snyder
713 A.2d 596, 600+ , Pa. , (NO. 0070 M.D. 1996 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Pre-Arrest Delay. Pre-arrest
delay of more than 11 years resulted in actual
prejudice to defendant, as required for finding of
due process violation.
May 19, 1998 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
97. Com. v. Daniels
390 A.2d 172, 179+ , Pa.
Defendant was convicted before the Court of
Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Wayne County,
No. 33 January Term, 1974, Donald O'Malley, J., of
voluntary manslaughter, and he...
Jul. 27, 1978 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
98. Com. v. Scher
732 A.2d 1278, 1281+ , Pa.Super. , (NO. 4778
PHILA. 1997 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Pre-Arrest Delay. Pre-arrest
delay of 20 years violated due process.
Jun. 07, 1999 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by 99. Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the
Court
Com. v. Scher
2002 WL 34426808, *34426808+ , Pa.Com.Pl.
(Trial Order) , (NO. 1996-174 )
ARGUED: May 2, 2000 Decided: August 20,
2002 We granted the Commonwealth's Petition
for Allowance of Appeal to decide whether the
Commonwealth violated Stephen Barry Scher's...
Oct. 11, 2002 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Examined by
100. State v. Krizan-Wilson
354 S.W.3d 808, 814+ , Tex.Crim.App. , (NO.
PD-1485-10 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Government Misconduct.
Defendant failed to show a violation of due process
based on pre-indictment delay.
Dec. 14, 2011 Case
4
6
7
S.Ct.
Examined by
101. State ex rel. Watkins v. Creuzot
AP-76,594 , AP-76,595 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Death Penalty. Trial judge
did not have authority to preclude State from
seeking death penalty on retrial due to delay
occasioned by appeal.
Jul. 27, 2011 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
102. State v. Krizan-Wilson
321 S.W.3d 619, 624+ , Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.) ,
(NO. 14-09-00475-CR )
Delay of twenty-three years between offense
and indictment for murder did not violate Fifth
Amendment right to due process.
Jun. 22, 2010 Case
8
9
S.Ct.
Examined by 103. State v. Horner
936 S.W.2d 668, 671+ , Tex.App.-Dallas , (NO.
05-94-00963-CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Delay of over
11 years between murder and return of indictment
did not violate defendant's due process rights.
Aug. 23, 1996 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
104. State v. Kuri
846 S.W.2d 459, 464+ , Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.) ,
(NO. C14-91-00432-CR )
Speedy Trial. Speedy trial rights of drug defendant
were not violated.
Jan. 07, 1993 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
105. Bevers v. State
811 S.W.2d 657, 664+ , Tex.App.-Fort Worth , (NO.
2-89-302-CR )
Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual
assault, in the Criminal District Court No. Two,
Tarrant County, Harry Hopkins, J., and defendant
appealed. The Court of Appeals, Joe...
May 31, 1991 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
106. State v. Hales
152 P.3d 321, 331+ , Utah , (NO. 20050131 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Counsel. Defendant was
prejudiced by counsels' failure to obtain a qualified
expert to give an independent interpretation of CT
scans.
Jan. 30, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
107. State v. Oppelt
257 P.3d 653, 656+ , Wash. , (NO. 84573-5 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Preaccusatorial Delay.
State's delay of over six years in prosecuting
defendant for child molestation did not violate his
due process rights.
Aug. 11, 2011 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Examined by
108. State v. Lidge
765 P.2d 1292, 1294+ , Wash. , (NO. 54424-7 )
Defendant who had just turned 18 was convicted
in the Superior Court, King County, Sharon S.
Armstrong, J., of burglary and possession of stolen
property, and he appealed. The...
Jan. 06, 1989 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
109. State v. Cantrell
758 P.2d 1, 3+ , Wash. , (NO. 54665-7 )
Following institution of escape charges against
him, juvenile sought to have charges dismissed
for prosecutorial delay. The Superior Court, King
County, Ward Williams, J.,...
Jul. 15, 1988 Case
4
5
6
S.Ct.
Examined by
110. State v. Boseck
723 P.2d 1182, 1185+ , Wash.App. Div. 1 , (NO.
16068-1-I )
First-degree possession of stolen property charge
against defendant was dismissed by the Superior
Court, Snohomish County, John F. Wilson, J., and
State appealed. The Court of...
Aug. 20, 1986 Case
3
8
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
111. State v. Davis
288 N.W.2d 870, 871+ , Wis.App. , (NO. 79-110-
CR )
Defendant made motion for dismissal of criminal
complaint against him. The Circuit Court, La Crosse
County, Peter G. Pappas, J., denied the motion,
and defendant appealed. The...
Jan. 15, 1980 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Examined by
112. Pueblo v. Carrion Rivera
2002 WL 1438652, *8+ , TCA , (NO.
KLCE0200254 , VP-01-10817 )
El peticionario, Eduardo Carrin Rivera, nos
solicita que revisemos la resolucin del Tribunal de
Primera Instancia, Subseccin de Distrito, Sala de
Bayamn, que declar no ha...
May 31, 2002 Case
5
S.Ct.
Examined by
113. People v. Velasquez
2013 WL 6115805, *2+ , V.I.Super. , (NO. SX-12-
CR-063 , SX-12-CR-064 , SX-12-CR-065 , SX-12-
CR-066 , SX-12-CR-076 )
THE PREMISES considered, as set forth in the
Memorandum Opinion of even date, it is hereby
ORDERED that ''Defendant Jose Ventura's Pre
Trial Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for...
Nov. 05, 2013 Case
5
6
9
S.Ct.
Declined to
Extend by
114. U.S. v. Ray
578 F.3d 184, 199+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO. 08-2795-
CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. A 15-year
delay in the defendant's resentencing violated her
right to due process, but not her right to a speedy
trial.
Aug. 27, 2009 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
115. Granek v. Texas State Bd. of Medical
Examiners
172 S.W.3d 761, 772+ , Tex.App.-Austin , (NO.
03-03-00698-CV )
HEALTH - Discipline. Board acted arbitrarily
and capriciously by modifying ALJ's proposal for
decision to add its explanation for sanctions.
Aug. 26, 2005 Case
3
8
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
116. State v. Knickerbocker
2004 WL 1146079, *14+ , N.H.Super. , (NO. 2003-
S-132 )
The original copy of this order is to be kept in the
court file under seal with copies to counsel only
as it contains references to matters which are
confidential pursuant to...
Feb. 05, 2004 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
117. People v. Belcher
542 N.E.2d 419, 421+ , Ill.App. 2 Dist. , (NO.
2-88-0765 )
Charges were dismissed by the Circuit Court,
Lake County, Alvin I. Singer, J., on the ground
that defendant's right to a speedy trial had been
violated. The State appealed. The...
Jul. 19, 1989 Case
2
3
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
118. Matter of Burt
737 F.2d 1477, 1486+ , 7th Cir.(Wis.) , (NO.
83-2722 )
Petitioner appealed from judgment entered by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, John W. Reynolds, Chief Judge,
denying his petition for writ of...
Jul. 02, 1984 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
119. U.S. v. Gouveia
104 S.Ct. 2292, 2298+ , U.S.Cal. , (NO. 83-128 )
On remand after prior appeal, 641 F.2d
785,certiorari denied, 454 U.S. 902, 102 S.Ct. 409,
70 L.Ed.2d 221, two federal prison inmates were
convicted in the United States District...
May 29, 1984 Case
3
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
120. U.S. v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred
and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in U.S. Currency
103 S.Ct. 2005, 2011+ , U.S.Cal. , (NO. 81-1062 )
District of California, Jesse W. Curtis, Senior District
Judge, entered judgment forfeiting $8,850 in United
States currency which...
May 23, 1983 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
121. U.S. v. DeCologero
530 F.3d 36, 78+ , 1st Cir.(Mass.) , (NO. 06-1274 ,
06-2390 , 06-2391 , 06-2392 , 06-2569 , 07-1086 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Joinder and Severance. Co-
defendant no criminal wrongdoing defense was
substantially compatible with defendant's criminal
wrongdoing testimony.
Jun. 23, 2008 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
122. U.S. v. Munoz-Franco
487 F.3d 25, 58+ , 1st Cir.(Puerto Rico) , (NO.
04-1532 , 04-1533 , 04-1534 , 04-1535 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Banking. Evidence was
sufficient to support to support bank officers' bank
fraud convictions.
May 22, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
123. U.S. v. DeLeon
444 F.3d 41, 57+ , 1st Cir.(Mass.) , (NO. 04-1592 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Appeals. Delay in
preparation of trial transcript for appeal did not
violate due process absent showing of prejudice.
Apr. 07, 2006 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
124. U.S. v. Marler
756 F.2d 206, 210+ , 1st Cir.(Mass.) , (NO.
84-1272 )
District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
David S. Nelson, J., of willful deprivation of civil
rights, and he appealed. The...
Mar. 08, 1985 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
125. U.S. v. Cerrito
612 F.2d 588, 592+ , 1st Cir.(R.I.) , (NO. 79-1055 )
Following conviction for making materially false
statements in order to induce bank to make loan
to corporation of which defendant was an officer,
defendant appealed from denial of...
Dec. 19, 1979 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
126. U.S. v. Dinero Express, Inc.
57 Fed.Appx. 456, 459+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO.
01-1634 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Double Jeopardy.
Convictions for money laundering and evading
currency reporting statutes were not multiplicitous.
Dec. 20, 2002 Case
7
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
127. DeMichele v. Greenburgh Central
School Dist. No. 7
167 F.3d 784, 789+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO.
98-7081 )
Teacher brought 1983 action against school
district and disciplinary hearing prosecutor, alleging
violations of his due process rights in connection
with his termination for...
Feb. 17, 1999 Case
3
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
128. U.S. v. Lai Ming Tanu
589 F.2d 82, 87+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO. 223 ,
78-1255 )
The United States appealed from the action of the
of New York, Jack B. Weinstein, J., in dismissing an
indictment after two...
Nov. 17, 1978 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
129. U.S. v. Laurenti
581 F.2d 37, 40+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO. 767 ,
78-1002 )
Government appealed from an order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Thomas P. Griesa, J., dismissing for
preindictment delay an indictment...
Jul. 19, 1978 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
130. U.S. v. King
560 F.2d 122, 129+ , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO. 1061 ,
1062 , 76-1435 , 76-1440 )
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Marvin E. Frankel, J., of securities fraud, mail fraud,
wire fraud, and...
Jul. 22, 1977 Case
4
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
131. Snyder v. Klem
438 Fed.Appx. 139, 141+ , 3rd Cir.(Pa.) , (NO.
10-3148 )
court's decision on prisoner's federal claim was not
contrary to federal law, as would warrant habeas
relief.
Jul. 20, 2011 Case
4
5
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
132. U.S. v. Ismaili
828 F.2d 153, 167+ , 3rd Cir.(N.J.) , (NO. 86-5552 )
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garrett
E. Brown, Jr., J., of mail fraud, and he appealed.
Sep. 02, 1987 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
133. U.S. v. Dizelos
217 F.3d 841, 841+ , 4th Cir.(Md.) , (NO. 99-4271 )
Defendant Theodore Dizelos appeals his
convictions and sentence for owning and operating
an automobile chop-shop, see 18 U.S .C.A.
2322 (West Supp.2000), knowingly tampering...
Jul. 19, 2000 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
134. Jones v. Angelone
94 F.3d 900, 905+ , 4th Cir.(Va.) , (NO. 95-6383 )
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief from his
Virginia murder convictions. After remand, 989 F.2d
493, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia,...
Sep. 03, 1996 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 135. U.S. v. Maryland and Virginia Milk
Producers Co-op. Ass'n, Inc.
974 F.2d 1333, 1333+ , 4th Cir.(Va.) , (NO.
91-5182 )
E.D.Va. AFFIRMED.
Sep. 15, 1992 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
136. U.S. v. Johnson
929 F.2d 695, 695+ , 4th Cir.(Md.) , (NO. 90-5790 )
D.Md. AFFIRMED.
Apr. 08, 1991 Case
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
137. U.S. v. Hakaj
842 F.2d 1293, 1293+ , 4th Cir.(Va.) , (NO.
87-5035 )
W.D.N.C. AFFIRMED.
Mar. 21, 1988 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
138. U.S. v. Reed
833 F.2d 1006, 1006+ , 4th Cir.(Va.) , (NO.
86-5672 )
E.D.Va. AFFIRMED.
Nov. 17, 1987 Case
6
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
139. U.S. v. Seale
600 F.3d 473, 479+ , 5th Cir.(Miss.) , (NO.
07-60732 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Confessions. District
court's plain error in failing to exclude defendant's
statement did not result in manifest miscarriage of
justice.
Mar. 12, 2010 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
140. U.S. v. Brown
86 Fed.Appx. 749, 756+ , 5th Cir.(La.) , (NO.
02-30021 , 02-30459 , 02-30514 , 03-30375 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Witnesses. Prosecutor's
failure to correct cooperating witnesses' false
testimony did not violate due process.
Feb. 11, 2004 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 141. U.S. v. Jordan
56 F.3d 1386, 1386+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.) , (NO.
94-20576 )
Spencer Jordan appeals his conviction of bank
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, 1014, and
1344. Finding no error, we affirm. On September
10, 1993, Jordan was charged in a...
May 25, 1995 Case
7
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
142. U.S. v. Crouch
51 F.3d 480, 482+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.) , (NO. 93-7719 )
Bank fraud defendants moved to dismiss on ground
of undue preindictment delay. The United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 835
F.Supp. 938,Samuel B....
Apr. 20, 1995 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
143. Dickerson v. State of La.
816 F.2d 220, 228+ , 5th Cir.(La.) , (NO. 86-3193 )
Inmate petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The
of Louisiana, George Arceneaux, Jr., J., denied
petition. Inmate appealed....
May 13, 1987 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
144. U.S. v. Scott
795 F.2d 1245, 1249+ , 5th Cir.(La.) , (NO.
85-4776 )
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Tom Stagg, Chief Judge, of arson and conspiring to
manufacture and possess...
Aug. 07, 1986 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
145. U.S. v. Townley
665 F.2d 579, 581+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.) , (NO. 80-2295 )
District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Halbert O. Woodward, Chief Judge, of mail fraud,
and he appealed. The Court of...
Jan. 11, 1982 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
146. U.S. v. Nixon
634 F.2d 306, 310+ , 5th Cir.(Ga.) , (NO. 79-5509 )
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Newell Edenfield, J., of perjury, and he appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Roney,...
Jan. 16, 1981 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
147. Rheuark v. Shaw
628 F.2d 297, 303+ , 5th Cir.(Tex.) , (NO. 79-3213 )
Civil rights suit was brought by prisoners against
court reporter, state court trial judge, county in
which prisoners were tried, and the commissioners
thereof, seeking damages and...
Sep. 24, 1980 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by
148. U.S. v. Medina-Arellano
569 F.2d 349, 352+ , 5th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO. 76-2818 )
Norman C. Roettger, J., of conspiracy to import
cocaine and conspiracy to possess...
Mar. 13, 1978 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
149. U.S. v. West
568 F.2d 365, 367+ , 5th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO. 77-5194 ,
77-5321 )
Defendants convicted in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida at Miami,
William O. Mehrtens, J., appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Alvin B. Rubin,...
Feb. 21, 1978 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
150. U.S. v. Gray
565 F.2d 881, 892+ , 5th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO. 77-5164 )
District Court for the Southern District of Florida at
Miami, James Lawrence King, J., of wire fraud and
conspiracy, and he...
Jan. 04, 1978 Case
Discussed by
151. U.S. v. Shaw
555 F.2d 1295, 1299+ , 5th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
76-2699 )
James Lawrence King, J., of devising a scheme to
defraud telephone company by...
Jul. 18, 1977 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
152. U.S. v. Baltimore
482 Fed.Appx. 977, 981+ , 6th Cir.(Ohio) , (NO.
10-3305 )
Delay of over five years before defendant was
indicted did not violate due process.
Jun. 26, 2012 Case
2
3
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
153. U.S. v. Schaffer
586 F.3d 414, 424+ , 6th Cir.(Ohio) , (NO. 09-3053 )
Indictment charging defendant with conspiracy
contained sufficient information to invoke federal
jurisdiction.
Nov. 12, 2009 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
154. Wolfe v. Bock
253 Fed.Appx. 526, 531+ , 6th Cir.(Mich.) , (NO.
06-1399 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Arrest. A 15year delay
between murder and arrest did not violate
defendant's due process right to fair trial.
Nov. 01, 2007 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
155. U.S. v. Brown
498 F.3d 523, 528+ , 6th Cir.(Mich.) , (NO.
06-1556 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Defendant's
due process rights were not violated by three-year
delay between crimes and arrest.
Aug. 16, 2007 Case
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
156. U.S. v. Wade
93 Fed.Appx. 874, 878+ , 6th Cir.(Ohio) , (NO.
02-3728 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Government Misconduct.
Delay in bringing tax charges did not substantially
prejudice defendant's right to fair trial.
Mar. 31, 2004 Case
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
157. Smith v. Caruso
53 Fed.Appx. 335, 336+ , 6th Cir.(Mich.) , (NO.
01-2238 )
Michal Smith, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro
se, appeals a district court judgment denying his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2254. This...
Dec. 16, 2002 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
158. Margroff v. Anderson
172 F.3d 873, 873+ , 6th Cir.(Ohio) , (NO. 96-3817 )
Petitioner Hobart Margroff appeals the District
Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. On
May 24, 1972, a band of...
Jan. 14, 1999 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
159. U.S. v. Rogers
118 F.3d 466, 476+ , 6th Cir.(Ky.) , (NO. 95-5351 )
Defendant, who was former state senator, was
convicted in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Joseph M. Hood, J., of
conspiracy to commit...
Jul. 02, 1997 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 160. U.S. v. Miller
91 F.3d 145, 145+ , 6th Cir.(Tenn.) , (NO. 95-5298 )
M.D.Tenn. AFFIRMED.
Jul. 29, 1996 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
161. U.S. v. Hermis
980 F.2d 731, 731+ , 6th Cir.(Mich.) , (NO.
92-1844 )
E.D.Mich. AFFIRMED.
Dec. 09, 1992 Case
3
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
162. U.S. v. Green
917 F.2d 25, 25+ , 6th Cir.(Ky.) , (NO. 90-5249 ,
90-5250 )
E.D.Ky. AFFIRMED.
Oct. 23, 1990 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 163. U.S. v. Mason
911 F.2d 734, 734+ , 6th Cir.(Tenn.) , (NO.
89-6532 )
E.D.Tenn. AFFIRMED.
Aug. 20, 1990 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
164. U.S. v. Atisha
804 F.2d 920, 928+ , 6th Cir.(Mich.) , (NO.
85-1537 , 85-1775 )
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of
conspiracy to steal goods from interstate commerce
and possessing stolen goods...
Oct. 30, 1986 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
165. U.S. v. Brock
803 F.2d 722, 722+ , 6th Cir.(Tenn.) , (NO.
85-5345 , 85-5390 )
M.D.Tenn. AFFIRMED.
Sep. 22, 1986 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
166. U.S. v. Duncan
763 F.2d 220, 222+ , 6th Cir.(Mich.) , (NO.
84-1526 )
After the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, 586 F.Supp. 1305,
Benjamin F. Gibson, J., denied defendant's motion
to dismiss, defendant pled guilty...
Jun. 07, 1985 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
167. Payne v. Rees
738 F.2d 118, 121+ , 6th Cir.(Ky.) , (NO. 82-5557 ,
82-5558 )
State prisoner petitioned for federal habeas corpus
relief. The United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Charles M. Allen, J.,
Chief Judge, denied...
Jun. 27, 1984 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
168. U.S. v. Sowa
34 F.3d 447, 450+ , 7th Cir.(Ill.) , (NO. 93-3833 )
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Paul
E. Plunkett, J., of conspiring to interfere by force
with rights of victims...
Aug. 30, 1994 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
169. U.S. v. Van Engel
15 F.3d 623, 630+ , 7th Cir.(Wis.) , (NO. 93-1184 ,
93-1255 )
Grand jury indicted defendant on numerous charges
relating to his conduct in produce business including
conspiracies to defraud insurance companies and
grocery chains, mail fraud,...
Dec. 20, 1993 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
170. U.S. v. Anagnostou
974 F.2d 939, 941+ , 7th Cir.(Ill.) , (NO. 91-3263 )
Defendant was convicted of using explosive device
to destroy restaurant and of mail fraud for filing
insurance claim to collect on resulting property loss
by the United States...
Sep. 10, 1992 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
171. U.S. v. Fuesting
845 F.2d 664, 669+ , 7th Cir.(Ill.) , (NO. 87-1006 )
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois,
James L. Foreman, Chief Judge, of two counts of
possession with intent to...
Apr. 15, 1988 Case
7
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
172. U.S. v. L'Allier
838 F.2d 234, 238+ , 7th Cir.(Wis.) , (NO. 87-1460 )
Defendant was convicted by jury in the United
States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge, of two
counts of armed robbery, and he...
Jan. 28, 1988 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
173. U.S. v. Valona
834 F.2d 1334, 1337+ , 7th Cir.(Wis.) , (NO.
86-2817 )
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
John W. Reynolds, J., of attempted possession of
cocaine with intent to...
Nov. 20, 1987 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
174. U.S. v. Watkins
709 F.2d 475, 479+ , 7th Cir.(Ill.) , (NO. 82-1286 )
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Marvin E. Aspen, J., of unlawfully selling, without
authority, property of...
Jun. 08, 1983 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
175. U.S. v. Bruscino
662 F.2d 450, 461+ , 7th Cir.(Ind.) , (NO. 80-2336 ,
80-2337 )
Defendants were convicted, respectively, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Gene E. Brooks,
J., of conspiracy and...
Oct. 20, 1981 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
176. McMaster v. U.S.
9 F.3d 47, 48+ , 8th Cir.(Minn.) , (NO. 93-1063 )
Prisoner brought habeas corpus proceeding based
on certification of his extradition to Canada to face
three murder charges. The United States District
Court for the District of...
Nov. 08, 1993 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
177. Oppelt v. Glebe
550 Fed.Appx. 499+ , 9th Cir.(Wash.) , (NO.
12-35698 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Habeas Corpus.
Determination that pre-indictment delay due to
negligence did not deprive defendant of due
process was not contrary federal law.
Dec. 24, 2013 Case
3
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
178. U.S. v. Bischel
61 F.3d 1429, 1436+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
94-50328 )
Defendant was convicted of various offenses arising
out of ''broker's crosses'' on investments sold by
company he owned by the United States District
Court for the Southern...
Aug. 04, 1995 Case
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
179. Howard v. Blodgett
17 F.3d 394, 394+ , 9th Cir.(Wash.) , (NO.
92-36993 )
E.D.Wash. AFFIRMED.
Dec. 10, 1993 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
180. U.S. v. Huntley
976 F.2d 1287, 1290+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
90-10151 )
Defendant was indicted for being felon in
possession of firearm seven and one-half months
after crime was committed. The United States
District Court for the Northern District of...
Oct. 06, 1992 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 181. U.S. v. Feldman
949 F.2d 399, 399+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
90-50470 )
C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED, VACATED AND REMANDED.
Dec. 05, 1991 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
182. U.S. v. Sherlock
865 F.2d 1069, 1073+ , 9th Cir.(Ariz.) , (NO.
87-1299 , 87-1300 )
Following joint trial, defendants were convicted of
assault with intent to commit rape by the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl
H. Carroll, J., and...
Jan. 11, 1989 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
183. U.S. v. Sherlock
962 F.2d 1349, 1353+ , 9th Cir.(Ariz.) , (NO.
87-1299 , 87-1300 )
Defendants were convicted of assault with intent
to commit rape after jury trial in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl H.
Carroll, J. Defendants...
Jan. 11, 1989 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 184. U.S. v. Hayden
860 F.2d 1483, 1485+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
88-5241 )
District of California, Harry L. Hupp, J., dismissed
with prejudice portions of new indictment of
defendant dealing with offenses...
Nov. 03, 1988 Case
2
S.Ct.
Discussed by 185. U.S. v. Baker
857 F.2d 1479, 1479+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
87-1227 )
E.D.Cal. AFFIRMED.
Sep. 01, 1988 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 186. Matter of Extradition of Kraiselburd
786 F.2d 1395, 1399+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO.
85-6156 )
Appeal was taken from denial by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California,
Rudi M. Brewster, J., of habeas corpus petition
sought after magistrate...
Apr. 14, 1986 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
187. U.S. v. Martinez
785 F.2d 663, 670+ , 9th Cir.(Ariz.) , (NO.
85-1146X )
Defendant was charged by indictment with making
false statements to federal officers concerning
his identity and citizenship and making a false
declaration before court. The...
Mar. 10, 1986 Case
3
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
188. U.S. v. Valenzuela
596 F.2d 824, 826+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO. 78-1016 ,
78-1342 , 78-1684 , 78-1784 )
Various defendants were convicted in the United
States District Court for the Central District of
California, Robert J. Kelleher, J., after prosecution
for conspiracy and on...
Mar. 23, 1979 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
189. U.S. v. Pallan
571 F.2d 497, 499+ , 9th Cir.(Cal.) , (NO. 77-2646 )
District Court for the Northern District of California,
Stanley A. Weigel, J., of attempted income tax
evasion and in making fraudulent...
Mar. 06, 1978 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
190. Garrison v. Workman
509 Fed.Appx. 720, 722+ , 10th Cir.(Okla.) , (NO.
11-5124 )
court's denial of claim that delay in prosecuting
petitioner deprived him of due process did not
warrant habeas relief.
Feb. 01, 2013 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
191. U.S. v. Koch
10-5135 )
Government's delay in filing indictment against
defendant for conspiracy to commit bank fraud did
not violate due process.
Oct. 28, 2011 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
192. U.S. v. Stanley
09-5162 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Pre-indictment
delay did not warrant dismissal of charges for
armed bank robbery and use of firearm during
robberies.
Jul. 02, 2010 Case
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
193. Mitchell v. Watkins
252 Fed.Appx. 874, 879+ , 10th Cir.(Colo.) , (NO.
07-1147 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Confrontation. Admission of
victim's hearsay statements in murder prosecution
did not violate Sixth Amendment.
Oct. 25, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
194. U.S. v. Primm
89 F.3d 851, 851+ , 10th Cir.(Kan.) , (NO. 95-3279 )
Terry L. Primm was convicted by a jury of
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g) and 924(a)(2) and of possession of heroin
and cocaine in violation of 21...
Jun. 12, 1996 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
195. U.S. v. Pino
708 F.2d 523, 527+ , 10th Cir.(N.M.) , (NO.
81-1538 )
District Court for the District of New Mexico,
Howard C. Bratton, Chief Judge, of involuntary
manslaughter occurring in Indian country,...
May 26, 1983 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
196. U.S. v. Jenkins
701 F.2d 850, 854+ , 10th Cir.(N.M.) , (NO.
81-1886 )
District Court for the District of New Mexico, Juan G.
Burciaga, J., of two counts of possession of cocaine
with intent to...
Feb. 28, 1983 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
197. U.S. v. McManaman
606 F.2d 919, 922+ , 10th Cir.(Kan.) , (NO.
78-1168 )
District Court for the District of Kansas, Wesley E.
Brown, J., of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and distribution...
Oct. 01, 1979 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
198. U.S. v. Radmall
591 F.2d 548, 550+ , 10th Cir.(Utah) , (NO.
77-1878 )
The Government appealed from order of the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, Willis
W. Ritter, Chief Judge, dismissing indictment
because of preindictment...
Nov. 16, 1978 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
199. U.S. v. Revada
574 F.2d 1047, 1048+ , 10th Cir.(Utah) , (NO.
77-1834 )
The United States District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division, Willis J. Ritter, J., granted
pretrial motion of defendant to dismiss indictment,
and the United States...
Apr. 27, 1978 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
200. Jackson v. Benton
315 Fed.Appx. 788, 789+ , 11th Cir.(Ga.) , (NO.
07-15616 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Delay
between murder defendant's arrest and his trial
did not violate the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial
guarantee.
Feb. 23, 2009 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
201. U.S. v. Keel
254 Fed.Appx. 759, 760+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
07-10583 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Trial delay on
charge of taking and transporting loggerhead sea
turtles did not violate defendant's speedy trial rights.
Nov. 08, 2007 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
202. U.S. v. Dyal
868 F.2d 424, 429+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
88-3332 )
Defendant moved to dismiss indictment with
prejudice on the ground that dismissal, two years
earlier, of criminal complaint alleging same offenses
barred instant prosecution. The...
Mar. 24, 1989 Case
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
203. U.S. v. Reme
738 F.2d 1156, 1162+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
83-5076 )
James Lawrence King, J., of transporting illegal
aliens to this country and of...
Aug. 09, 1984 Case
7
S.Ct.
Discussed by
204. U.S. v. Lindstrom
698 F.2d 1154, 1157+ , 11th Cir.(Fla.) , (NO.
81-5901 )
Defendants were convicted before the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
George C. Carr, J., of conspiracy to commit mail
fraud and mail fraud, and...
Feb. 22, 1983 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
205. U.S. v. Scrushy
2006 WL 780905, *6+ , M.D.Ala. , (NO. 2:05CR119-
F )
Defendant Scrushy seeks dismissal of the
indictment against him because of alleged
prosecutorial misconduct and undue delay in
unsealing the May 2005 indictment returned
against...
Mar. 27, 2006 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 206. U.S. v. Gerlay
2010 WL 1294121, *2+ , D.Alaska , (NO. 3:09-
CR-085-JWS-JDR )
Defendant Gary Gerlay moves pursuant to the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment for an order
dismissing Counts 6 through 9 of the Indictment due
to pre-indictment delay....
Apr. 01, 2010 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 207. Dunlap v. Corbin
532 F.Supp. 183, 186+ , D.Ariz. , (NO. CIV. 80-599
PHX CAM )
Following dismissal of prosecution charging
him with capital murder, former defendant filed
complaint claiming that state attorney general's
failure to provide him with a prompt...
Jan. 06, 1981 Case
3
7
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
208. United States v. Gomez
2014 WL 1089288, *3+ , N.D.Cal. , (NO. CR
13-00282 PJH )
On March 5, 2014, this matter came before the
court on the motions of defendant Antonio Gomez
to dismiss the indictment and to suppress evidence.
Having carefully considered the...
Mar. 14, 2014 Case
7
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
209. Steele v. Harrington
2013 WL 5441750, *21+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. LA CV
10-04872-VBF-E )
Linda Kanter, Courtroom Deputy. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will overrule petitioner's
objections and adopt Magistrate Judge Rosenberg's
well-reasoned Report and...
Sep. 25, 2013 Case
4
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
210. Perez v. Hill
2013 WL 3982559, *5+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. CV
11-9918-DMG DTB )
reviewed the Petition, all the records and files
herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge. No...
Jul. 31, 2013 Case
2
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
211. Harrison v. Biter
2013 WL 3337777, *8+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. EDCV
12-01452 ODW AN )
reviewed the file, including the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (R & R) and
Petitioner's Objection [22]. Further, the...
Jul. 02, 2013 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
212. Miller v. Lewis
2013 WL 2421987, *17+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. 1:12-
CV-01818-LJO )
Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254.
Petitioner is represented by George Schraer, Esq.
Following a jury trial in the...
Jun. 03, 2013 Case
6
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
213. Gregory v. Hill
2013 WL 2130887, *12+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. CV
11-05751-JVS VBK )
This Report and Recommendation is submitted
to the Honorable James V. Selna, United States
District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. 636 and General Order 0507 of...
Apr. 05, 2013 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
214. Ziemann v. Cash
2012 WL 5964527, *11+ , S.D.Cal. , (NO. 11-
CV-2496-BEN KSC )
Kenneth Arthur Ziemann (Ziemann), a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a First Amended Petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254,...
Oct. 31, 2012 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
215. Alcantara v. McEwen
2012 WL 3542529, *10+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. CV
11-4703-ODW JPR )
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to
the Honorable Otis D. Wright, U.S. District Judge,
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S .C. 636 and
General Order 0507 of the U.S....
Jul. 06, 2012 Case
4
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
216. Bowen v. Hedpeth
2012 WL 2018547, *9+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. 2:10-
CV-01454-JKS )
Wayne Lee Bowen, a state prisoner appearing
pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Bowen is currently in the
custody of the California...
Jun. 05, 2012 Case
7
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by 217. New v. Uribe
2011 WL 5386317, *2+ , S.D.Cal. , (NO. 09CV2609
JLS LSP )
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge
Louisa S. Porter's report and recommendation (R &
R) advising the Court to deny William Peter New's
(Petitioner) petition for...
Nov. 07, 2011 Case
Discussed by
218. Maniscalco v. Busby
2011 WL 6433292, *20+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. SA CV
03-1363 DDP )
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to
the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States
District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. 636 and General Order 0507...
Aug. 25, 2011 Case
6
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
219. Nelson v. Swarthout
2011 WL 3055323, *4+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. 2:09-
CV-2793 )
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without
counsel, with an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner
challenges his 2004 conviction...
Jul. 25, 2011 Case
4
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
220. Carranza v. Yates
2011 WL 1496045, *4+ , N.D.Cal. , (NO. C 07-1114
MHP PR )
Ismael Tovar Carranza filed this pro se action
seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
2254. The matter is now before the court for
consideration of the merits of the...
Apr. 20, 2011 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by 221. Woodfork v. Felker
2010 WL 4666055, *10+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. 2:09-
CV-00054-JKS )
Petitioner, Ray Woodfork, a state petitioner
proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Woodfork
is currently in the custody of the...
Nov. 09, 2010 Case
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by 222. Vasquez v. McDonald
2010 WL 444884, *4+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO. 2:09-
CV-00295 JKS )
Petitioner, Jose Fred Vasquez, Jr., a state petitioner
proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Vasquez
is currently in custody of...
Feb. 02, 2010 Case
Discussed by
223. Harrison v. Mule Creek State Prison
2009 WL 453113, *38+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO.
CVF035122OWWWMWHC )
Petitioner is a state prisoner who is proceeding
pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in this court. This
case proceeds on the first amended...
Feb. 23, 2009 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by
224. Evans v. Tilton
2009 WL 35475, *28+ , S.D.Cal. , (NO. 07 CV 0791
JM (BLM) )
Terry Don Evans (Petitioner), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on...
Jan. 05, 2009 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
225. Tucker v. Ryan
2005 WL 3030992, *7+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO.
CVF045662OWWDLBHC )
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2254. On May 8, 2002, Petitioner was
convicted in the Tulare...
Nov. 09, 2005 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
226. Lizarraga v. Pliler
2005 WL 1704371, *11+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO.
CIVS011062MCEJFMP )
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with
an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1997
conviction on charges...
Jul. 14, 2005 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
227. Niebauer v. Blanks
2003 WL 22288155, *4+ , N.D.Cal. , (NO.
C02-05832 CRB )
Following his conviction for first-degree murder
of his wife, California inmate petitioned for writ of
habeas corpus. Amending and superceding its prior
opinion, 2003 WL 22064029,...
Oct. 01, 2003 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 228. U.S. v. Ai Le
2003 WL 378641, *5+ , E.D.Cal. , (NO.
CR.S-99-0433 WBS )
Defendant Hoang Ai Le is one of seven defendants
named in this indictment. Le now moves to dismiss
his indictment on the grounds that his rights have
been violated under the Double...
Feb. 14, 2003 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
229. Law v. Alameida
2001 WL 114440, *3+ , N.D.Cal. , (NO. C 99-4045
CRB (PR) )
Petitioner was convicted of residential burglary in
the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Alameda. The court also found
true allegations that...
Jan. 29, 2001 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
230. U.S. v. Handler
1978 WL 5690, *4+ , C.D.Cal. , (NO. CR 78-0148-
RMT )
On February 5 and 23, 1973, Mattel released to
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
two inconsistent statements regarding its financial
affairs for the fiscal years of...
Aug. 03, 1978 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
231. U.S. v. Durrani
659 F.Supp. 1177, 1179+ , D.Conn. , (NO. CR.
B-86-59 (TFGD) )
Defendant was charged with violating provisions
of Arms Export Control Act. Defendant moved to
dismiss indictment for, inter alia, delay, multiplicity
and improper venue. The...
Mar. 12, 1987 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
232. U.S. v. Williams-Davis
1992 WL 38450, *1+ , D.D.C. , (NO. CRIM.
91-0559-01 GHR )
Defendant Kevin F. WilliamsDavis has moved this
Court for an order dismissing racketeering act 7 and
count 7 of the multi-count indictment in which he is
charged, on grounds of...
Feb. 03, 1992 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
233. U.S. v. Mahoney
698 F.Supp. 344, 346+ , D.D.C. , (NO. CR.
88-0216-OG )
Defendant was indicted on charges of bid rigging
and he brought motions to dismiss. The District
Court, Gasch, Senior District Judge, held that: (1)
grand jury did not exceed...
Oct. 05, 1988 Case
4
5
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
234. Evans v. McNeil
2011 WL 9717450, *33+ , S.D.Fla. , (NO. 08-14402-
CIV )
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon
Petitioner Paul H. Evans's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (D.E.1). After careful consideration
of Mr. Evans's petition, the State's...
Jun. 20, 2011 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 235. Bauer v. U.S.
2007 WL 5274716, *4+ , S.D.Fla. , (NO. 06-21286-
CIV )
Petitioner Richard Bauer, a prisoner in federal
custody, filed this petition for writ of habeas
corpus to set aside, vacate or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C 2255...
Mar. 27, 2007 Case
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
236. U.S. v. Williams
2012 WL 5845004, *1+ , N.D.Ga. , (NO. 1:11-
CR-547-ODE-ECS , 1:12-CR-80-ODE-ECS )
These consolidated criminal cases are before the
Court on Defendant Curtis Williams' objections
[Docs. 33/29] to Magistrate Judge E. Clayton
Scofield's Report and Recommendation...
Nov. 16, 2012 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
237. U.S. v. Williams
2012 WL 5844691, *2+ , N.D.Ga. , (NO. 1:11-
CR-547-ODE-ECS , 1:12-CR-80-ODE-ECS )
The above-captioned matters are before the Court
on Defendant's motions to dismiss based upon pre-
indictment delay. See [Doc. 10, 16] in 1:12CR80,
and [Doc. 15] in 1:11CR547....
Sep. 04, 2012 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
238. U.S. v. Campbell
2005 WL 6436621, *3+ , N.D.Ga. , (NO. 1:04-
CR-0424-RWS )
Presently submitted to the Court for review are
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Pre
Indictment Delay [45], the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation [151]...
Oct. 24, 2005 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
239. U.S. v. Cisco
1982 WL 1672, *4+ , S.D.Ga. , (NO. CR 582-03 )
The above-styled case is presently before this
Court on two motions by the defendant. First,
the defendant has moved this Court for an Order
continuing the trial date currently...
Jun. 01, 1982 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
240. U.S. v. Kato
666 F.Supp. 1428, 1429+ , D.Hawai'i , (NO. CR.
84-01560 )
Defendant was charged with distribution and
attempted distribution of heroin. On defendant's
motion to dismiss, the District Court, Kay, J., held
that: (1) preindictment delay...
May 29, 1987 Case
2
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
241. Gay v. Pfister
2013 WL 3032297, *2+ , C.D.Ill. , (NO. 12-
CV-1444 )
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner
Anthony Gay's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 1). Respondent
has filed a Response (Doc. 16)....
Jun. 17, 2013 Case
2
5
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
242. U.S. v. McNeal
2006 WL 760186, *6+ , N.D.Ill. , (NO. 03 CR 80 )
On March 27, 2003, a grand jury indicted Gregory
McNeal for conspiracy to possess cocaine base and
cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21
U.S.C. 846; possession of...
Mar. 20, 2006 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
243. U.S. ex rel. Sarmont v. Target Corp.
2003 WL 22389119, *6+ , N.D.Ill. , (NO. 02 C 0815 )
Plaintiff Leland Sarmont brought this action under
the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 (the
''FCA''), both in his individual capacity and as a qui
tam relator on behalf of...
Oct. 20, 2003 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
244. U.S. v. Parades
751 F.Supp. 1288, 1291+ , N.D.Ill. , (NO. 89 CR
955 )
Defendants were charged under the Assimilative
Crimes Act with conspiracy to commit murder and
aggravated battery and solicitation of murder.
Defendants brought pretrial motions....
Oct. 31, 1990 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
245. Bowling v. Haeberlin
2012 WL 4498647, *35+ , E.D.Ky. , (NO. CIV.
03-28-ART )
Almost two decades ago, a Kentucky jury convicted
Petitioner Ronnie Lee Bowling of murdering Ronald
Smith and Marvin Hensley and sentenced him to
death. Bowling's petition for the...
Sep. 28, 2012 Case
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
246. U.S. v. Maling
737 F.Supp. 684, 698+ , D.Mass. , (NO. CR.
88-116-C )
Defendants charged with offenses arising out
of marijuana distribution conspiracy and related
offenses filed pretrial motions for dismissal. The
District Court, Caffrey, Senior...
Apr. 23, 1990 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
247. U.S. v. Marler
583 F.Supp. 1456, 1458+ , D.Mass. , (NO. CRIM.
83-292-N )
Defendant, who had been convicted in state court
moved to dismiss federal charges arising out of
the same incident. The District Court, David S.
Nelson, J., held that: (1)...
Apr. 11, 1984 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
248. U.S. v. Holland
985 F.Supp. 587, 597+ , D.Md. , (NO. AMD
96-0399 )
Defendants were charged with various offenses
arising out of alleged heroin and crack cocaine
conspiracy. Defendants filed motions to dismiss
as well as other various pretrial...
Nov. 04, 1997 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
249. U.S. v. Beall
581 F.Supp. 1468, 1470+ , D.Md. , (NO. CRIM.
Y-83-00395 )
Defendant moved to dismiss portions of indictment
for preindictment delay and due process violations.
The District Court, Joseph H. Young, J., held that
prosecution of defendant...
Mar. 14, 1984 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 250. U.S. v. Miller
484 F.Supp.2d 154, 156+ , D.Me. , (NO. 2:06 CR
105 P S )
Government failure to interview key defense
witness prior to death did not substantially prejudice
defendant.
Apr. 05, 2007 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
251. U.S. v. Collamore
751 F.Supp. 1012, 1025+ , D.Me. , (NO. CR.
88-00002-P )
Following defendant's conviction under the Armed
Career Criminal Act for possession of firearm by
a felon, court considered his motions to dismiss.
The District Court, Gene...
Nov. 13, 1990 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
252. U.S. v. Veillette
688 F.Supp. 777, 779+ , D.Me. , (NO. CR.
87-00025-B )
Defendant, charged in two-count indictment with
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and with
failure to appear, moved to dismiss indictments.
The District Court, Cyr,...
Jun. 22, 1988 Case
2
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by 253. Clay v. Bergh
2014 WL 1048148, *4+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 2:11-
CV-13868 )
Maurice Oakley Clay, (Petitioner), incarcerated at
the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan,
seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...
Mar. 18, 2014 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 254. Hurd v. Howes
2014 WL 793631, *8+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
2:11-10600 )
Demetrius Hurd, (petitioner), confined at the
Central Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis,
Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...
Feb. 27, 2014 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 255. Lewis v. Booker
2013 WL 5231934, *10+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
12-12369 )
This matter comes before the Court on the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
[dkt 11], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court deny Petitioner's...
Sep. 17, 2013 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
256. Willis v. Harry
2013 WL 791519, *7+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 09-11945 )
Petitioner Titus Curtis Willis, a prisoner in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections,
has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254...
Mar. 04, 2013 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
257. Fann v. Napel
2012 WL 3248195, *3+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
10-11053 )
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's pro
se request for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254. Petitioner was convicted in the Oakland
Circuit Court of four counts...
Aug. 08, 2012 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
258. Desai v. Booker
882 F.Supp.2d 926, 946+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 2:05-
CV-74243 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Evidence. Inherent
unreliability of a codefendant's alleged hearsay
confession violated murder defendant's Due
Process rights.
Jul. 31, 2012 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
259. MacLean v. McKee
2012 WL 2803756, *6+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 2:09-
CV-12992 )
Petitioner Thomas V. MacLean is presently in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections,
serving concurrent sentences of 171/2 to 30 years'
imprisonment for...
Jul. 10, 2012 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
260. Parker v. Booker
2011 WL 5984035, *6+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 2:08-
CV-13824 )
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jack
Parker Jr.'s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed
under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner is currently
incarcerated at the...
Nov. 30, 2011 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 261. Patton v. Longley
2011 WL 7052799, *4+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 4:10-
CV-12790 )
I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should deny
petitioner's application for the writ of habeas
corpus and should deny petitioner a certificate of
appealability. 1. Petitioner Joseph...
Aug. 01, 2011 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by
262. Litteral v. Palmer
2010 WL 2633595, *5+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 08-
CV-11172 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Habeas Corpus. Habeas
relief was not warranted on claim that counsel's
decision not to pursue insanity defense amounted to
ineffective assistance.
Jun. 29, 2010 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
263. Hall v. Bell
2010 WL 891850, *8+ , W.D.Mich. , (NO. 1:07-
CV-239 )
Defendant did not show how a twenty-one year
delay between offense and indictment prejudiced
him, thus not denied due process.
Mar. 11, 2010 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
264. Stadler v. Curtin
682 F.Supp.2d 807, 817+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
06-14286 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Counsel. Defendant charged
with rape was not denied effective assistance due to
counsel's decision not to present alibi defense.
Jan. 22, 2010 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 265. Johnson v. Berghuis
2009 WL 2777309, *8+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 2:06-
CV-14098 )
Petitioner, Donyell Gerard Johnson, is a state
inmate currently incarcerated at G. Robert Cotton
Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. Petitioner
was convicted after his...
Aug. 26, 2009 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 266. McGuire v. Ludwick
2009 WL 2476452, *6+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 2:07-
CV-15399 )
Roderick Andre McGuire, (Petitioner), confined
at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis,
Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...
Aug. 11, 2009 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
267. Williams v. Wolfenbarger
2009 WL 94528, *25+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 06-10173 )
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. 2254.
Petitioner Averell Lavar Williams (Petitioner) is
a state prisoner convicted of first-degree felony
murder, for which he is serving a...
Jan. 12, 2009 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
268. Randle v. Jackson
544 F.Supp.2d 619, 630+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
04-10322 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Defendant was
not sufficiently prejudiced by a preindictment delay
of nearly five years to violate due process.
Mar. 31, 2008 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
269. Harris v. Wolfenbarger
2007 WL 2421545, *7+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 05-
CV-74316 )
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. 2254.
Petitioner Michael Darnell Harris (Petitioner) is a
state inmate at the Carson City Correctional Facility
in Carson City, Michigan,...
Aug. 27, 2007 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
270. U.S. v. Atkinson
2007 WL 1747151, *1+ , W.D.Mich. , (NO. 1:07-
CR-16 )
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant
Christopher Scott Atkinson's motion to dismiss for
prejudicial pre-indictment delay and prosecutorial
vindictiveness. For the...
Jun. 18, 2007 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
271. Barawskas v. Caruso
2006 WL 3104038, *2+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 05-
CV-74491-DT )
Petitioner Ronald Barawskas has filed an
application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. 2254. The habeas petition challenges
Petitioner's state conviction for...
Oct. 31, 2006 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
272. Wolfe v. Bock
412 F.Supp.2d 657, 679+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
01-10053-BC )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Habeas Corpus. No grounds
were shown for habeas relief from state felony
murder conviction.
Jan. 31, 2006 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
273. Murphy v. Elo
2005 WL 2284223, *21+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO. 97-
CV-76017-DT )
I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should deny
petitioner's application for the writ of habeas corpus.
II. REPORT: 1. Petitioner Timothy David Murphy is
a state prisoner, currently...
Sep. 01, 2005 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
274. Carigon v. Berghuis
2005 WL 4102119, *7+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
00-75567 )
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's,
Timothy Carigon's, pro se request for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254.
Respondent filed her Answer in Opposition...
Aug. 08, 2005 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
275. U.S. v. Sylvester
2005 WL 1528248, *3+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
03-20008BC )
The defendant, James Roy Sylvester Jr., presently
charged in a seventeen-count, eighth superseding
indictment with various controlled substance and
firearms offences, filed a...
Jun. 16, 2005 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 276. Burns v. Lafler
328 F.Supp.2d 711, 719+ , E.D.Mich. , (NO.
CIV.03-40189 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Discovery. Petitioner failed to
establish Brady violation
Jul. 26, 2004 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
277. U.S. v. Duncan
586 F.Supp. 1305, 1308+ , W.D.Mich. , (NO. G84-4
CR )
Defendant, who was charged with various drug
offenses, moved to dismiss indictment, to suppress
evidence and for discovery. The District Court,
Benjamin F. Gibson, J., held that:...
May 09, 1984 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
278. U.S. v. Sayers
2013 WL 627073, *6+ , D.Minn. , (NO. CRIM.
12-235 JNE/LIB )
This matter came before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge upon Defendant's motion
to dismiss the indictment. The case has been
referred to the Magistrate Judge for...
Jan. 18, 2013 Case
3
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
279. Gray v. Epps
2008 WL 4793796, *27+ , S.D.Miss. , (NO. CIVA
4:04CV234LG )
Rodney Gray was convicted in the Circuit Court of
Newton County, Mississippi, of capital murder, with
underlying offenses of kidnaping and rape. He was
sentenced to death on...
Oct. 27, 2008 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
280. Beckwith v. Anderson
89 F.Supp.2d 788, 805+ , S.D.Miss. , (NO. 3:99-
CV-413BN )
Twenty year delay in re-indicting defendant for
murder did not violate due process clause.
Feb. 24, 2000 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
281. U.S. v. Heddings
2013 WL 4432126, *4+ , D.Mont. , (NO. CR 06-76-
GF-DWM , CV 11-06-GF-DWM )
On January 21, 2011, Defendant/Movant Scott
Heddings filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
Heddings filed his original motion...
Aug. 15, 2013 Case
7
S.Ct.
Discussed by
282. U.S. v. Pope
2007 WL 1892234, *1+ , W.D.N.C. , (NO.
1:07CR46 )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and,
in the alternative, to continue the trial. Both motions
are denied; however, in view of the...
Jul. 02, 2007 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
283. U.S. v. United Imports Corp.
2000 WL 33679266, *1+ , D.Neb. , (NO. 8:99CR80 )
This matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation (Filing No. 230) of the magistrate
judge, recommending that the motions of the
defendants, Susan Germer, Infinite...
Nov. 30, 2000 Case
7
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
284. U.S. v. Palikyan
2009 WL 1738523, *3+ , D.Nev. , (NO.
2:08CR0311RLHGWF )
Before this Court are the Findings &
Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge (# 95, filed June 2, 2009), entered by
the Honorable George W. Foley, regarding
Defendants...
Jun. 15, 2009 Case
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by 285. U.S. v. Chen Chiang Liu
2008 WL 4224465, *9+ , D.Nev. , (NO. 2:07-CR-170
JCM(LRL) )
Presently before the court are the report and
recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Lawrence R. Leavitt (Doc. # 115), filed on August 5,
2008. Defendant Chen Chiang Liu...
Sep. 05, 2008 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
286. U.S. v. Gatto
746 F.Supp. 432, 453+ , D.N.J. , (NO. CR.A.
89-250(SSB) )
Ruling on defendants' various pretrial motions in
prosecution for, inter alia, Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy and
substantive RICO violations,...
Sep. 04, 1990 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
287. U.S. v. Marchese
966 F.Supp.2d 223, 244+ , W.D.N.Y. , (NO. 11-
CR-155 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Searches and Seizures.
Defendant's purported consent to enter and search
his apartment was not voluntary.
Aug. 19, 2013 Case
4
5
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
288. Carter v. Kelly
2013 WL 3340486, *3+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 12-
CV-4168 TCP )
Before the Court is Rudy Carter's (Petitioner)
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. ECF No. 1. The
Petition challenges Petitioner's...
Jun. 28, 2013 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
289. Ortiz v. Artuz
2010 WL 3290962, *6+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 09 CIV
5553 NRB )
Petitioner Ruben Ortiz (petitioner or Ortiz),
currently an inmate at the Clinton Correctional
Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28...
Aug. 09, 2010 Case
3
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
290. U.S. v. Culligan
2007 WL 3232484, *5+ , W.D.N.Y. , (NO. 04-
CR-305A )
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge H.
Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(A). On July 14, 2006, defendant filed an
omnibus motion. On April 19, 2007,...
Nov. 01, 2007 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
291. Mayo v. Burge
2003 WL 21767767, *4+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 02 CIV.
10192 (NRB) )
State prisoner filed pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus, challenging conviction of manslaughter in
the first degree, affirmed at 284 A.D.2d 111, 726
N.Y.S.2d 32. The...
Jul. 30, 2003 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
292. U.S. v. Gonzalez
2000 WL 1721171, *1+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 00 CR 447
DLC )
Defendant Esteban Gonzalez (''Gonzalez'') has
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on
unreasonable pre-indictment delay in violation of the
Due Process Clause of the...
Nov. 17, 2000 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
293. U.S. v. Santos
1999 WL 4912, *2+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 98 CR. 736
(RWS) )
Defendant Frank Santos (Santos) has moved
(1) for an order, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b),
dismissing the indictment against him on the ground
of improper prosecutorial delay;...
Jan. 05, 1999 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
294. U.S. v. Wallace
1998 WL 401534, *11+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 97 CR.
975 (RWS) )
Defendant Jerome Wallace (Wallace) has moved
(1) to suppress the physical evidence seized at the
time of his arrest on December 1, 1992, all written
or oral statements Wallace...
Jul. 17, 1998 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
295. Schurman v. Leonardo
768 F.Supp. 993, 998+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 90 CIV.
6484 (MBM) )
Petitioner convicted of murder sought habeas
corpus relief. The District Court, Mukasey, J.,
held that: (1) 12-year delay between murder and
indictment did not deny due process;...
Jun. 11, 1991 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
296. U.S. v. Greenfield
1984 WL 1179, *1+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 84 CR. 297
(CBM) )
Defendant Bruce P. Greenfield was indicted
on charges of conspiring to manufacture and
distribute lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and
methaqualone (Quaalude), manufacturing...
Nov. 02, 1984 Case
3
7
S.Ct.
Discussed by
297. U.S. v. Eisbart
1984 WL 213, *1+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 83 CR. 806-
CSH )
Defendant Sami Eisbart is charged with tax evasion
in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201 and violations of the
federal mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C.
1341 and 1343, in...
Apr. 18, 1984 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
298. U.S. v. Torigian Laboratories, Inc.
577 F.Supp. 1514, 1520+ , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 81 CR.
598 )
A criminal prosecution was instituted under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Defendants appealed a magistrate's decision
convicting them of all 18 counts of the...
Jan. 18, 1984 Case
2
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
299. U.S. v. Hodge
556 F.Supp. 139, 141+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 82 CR.
0603 (EW) )
In a prosecution for an alleged conspiracy to forge
and negotiate United States Treasury checks,
the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on
preindictment delay. The...
Feb. 01, 1983 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
300. U.S. v. Villa
470 F.Supp. 315, 319+ , N.D.N.Y. , (NO. 77-
CR-131 )
Defendant moved to dismiss indictment charging
violation of federal narcotics laws. The District
Court, Munson, J., held that: (1) evidence
established that Government's efforts...
Jan. 09, 1979 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
301. U.S. v. Ottley
439 F.Supp. 587, 591+ , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 77 CR.
563 )
In a prosecution for violations of the Landrum-Griffin
Act, the District Court, Whitman Knapp, J., held that:
(1) under provisions requiring labor organizations to
file annual...
Oct. 19, 1977 Case
3
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 302. Curtis v. Warden, Marion Correctional Inst.
2013 WL 5524604, *10+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 1:12-
CV-260 )
Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the Marion
Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio, has filed a
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2254....
Oct. 04, 2013 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 303. Murphy v. Dewine
2012 WL 2357391, *3+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 1:11-
CV-581 )
This is a habeas corpus case brought pro se by
Petitioner Wayne Murphy to obtain relief from his
conviction in the Scioto County Common Pleas
Court for aggravated robbery,...
Jun. 19, 2012 Case
2
S.Ct.
Discussed by 304. Harris v. Warden, Pickaway Correctional
Inst.
2012 WL 600731, *5+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 2:11-
CV-376 )
Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254.
This matter is before the Court on the Petition,
Respondent's Return of...
Feb. 02, 2012 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 305. Wade v. Hamilton County Prosecutor's
Office
2011 WL 5920770, *4+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 1:11-
CV-590 )
Charles L. Wade, an inmate at the Elkton Federal
Correctional Institution in Lisbon, Ohio, brings this
pro se action against the Hamilton County, Ohio,
Prosecutor's and Sheriff's...
Nov. 07, 2011 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
306. Dennis v. Knab
2010 WL 3258392, *10+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 2:08-
CV-866 )
Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings the instant
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2254. This matter is before the Court on
the instant petition,...
Jul. 20, 2010 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
307. Warren v. Smith
2010 WL 2837001, *10+ , N.D.Ohio , (NO.
1:09CV1064 )
Petitioner, Reginald Warren (Warren), through
counsel, challenges the constitutionality of his
conviction and sentence in the case of State v.
Warren, Cuyahoga County Court of...
Apr. 29, 2010 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 308. Russell v. Hudson
2008 WL 2600006, *23+ , N.D.Ohio , (NO. 1:06 CV
485 )
On March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254, alleging fifteen (15) grounds for relief. (Doc.
No. 1.) Respondent...
Jun. 26, 2008 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 309. Tullis v. Kontah
2007 WL 4171635, *5+ , S.D.Ohio , (NO. 2:06-
CV-1025 )
On October 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending that
the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus be
dismissed. Petitioner has filed...
Nov. 20, 2007 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 310. Kolvek v. Eberlin
2007 WL 6197483, *17+ , N.D.Ohio , (NO.
5:05CV2598 )
The petitioner Robert Kolvek (Kolvek) has filed a
petition pro se for a writ of habeas corpus, under
28 U.S.C. 2254, regarding his 2003 felony
convictions for drug possession,...
May 24, 2007 Case
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
311. U.S. v. Staton
2012 WL 2077196, *6+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CRIM.A.
10-800-01 )
Presently before the Court are Defendant Barrett
Byron Staton's Motion to Compel Disclosure of
Grand Jury Minutes and Testimony (ECF No. 87)
and Motion to Dismiss Indictment (ECF...
Jun. 08, 2012 Case
2
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 312. U.S. v. Brown
2009 WL 1310714, *2+ , W.D.Pa. , (NO. CRIM.
08-98 )
Before the court are two motions by defendant
Jerome Brown. The first is a motion to suppress or
exclude electronic surveillance evidence. [Doc. No.
43]. The second is a motion to...
May 11, 2009 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 313. Zayas v. Krysevig
2008 WL 2609991, *4+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CIV.A.
08-556 )
AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2008, upon
careful and independent consideration of the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1),
the respondents' Response (Docket No. 8),...
Jun. 26, 2008 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
314. U.S. v. Newmark
2007 WL 839077, *6+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CRIM.
06-447 )
The grand jury has issued an Indictment in this
case that describes a money and property scheme
allegedly designed and orchestrated by defendant
Brian J. Newmark, and implemented...
Mar. 14, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 315. U.S. v. Mais
2006 WL 3308429, *6+ , W.D.Pa. , (NO.
2:00CR54 )
On March 28, 2000, a grand jury returned a
fourteen count indictment against David Mais
(''defendant'') charging him at Count One with
conspiring, from in or around 1994 and...
Oct. 30, 2006 Case
3
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
316. Linder v. Zimmerman
1989 WL 86206, *1+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CIV. A.
87-7651 )
Petitioner Steven Linder, currently confined at
the State Correctional Institution, Graterford,
Pennsylvania, filed this pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28...
Jul. 31, 1989 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
317. U.S. v. Kale
1986 WL 8136, *1+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CR. 86-00050 )
On February 4, 1986, defendant was indicted for
conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 371, and bribery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 201(b). The...
Jul. 14, 1986 Case
3
5
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
318. U.S. v. Joseph
510 F.Supp. 1001, 1004+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO.
CRIM.81-00070 )
Defendant filed several pretrial motions in a
prosecution alleging that defendant, a clerk of
county court, violated the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act by...
Apr. 02, 1981 Case
7
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
319. U.S. v. Holman
490 F.Supp. 755, 759+ , E.D.Pa. , (NO. CRIM.
79-139 )
Various defendants were indicted for conspiring to
engage in unlawful traffic of heroin, and there were
additional counts of aiding and abetting possession
of heroin with intent to...
Feb. 05, 1980 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 320. U.S. v. Brown
72-519 )
Government filed petition for revocation of probation
of defendant, whose two-year probationary term
had already expired, on ground that defendant
violated terms of his probation...
Aug. 11, 1978 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 321. U.S. v. Borish
78-32 )
In a 55-count indictment, defendants were charged
with, inter alia, the making and submitting, or the
aiding and abetting thereof, of Department of
Housing and Urban Development...
Jun. 20, 1978 Case
2
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 322. U. S. v. Panetta
76-341 )
Defendants who had been convicted of unlawful
receipt of firearms by a felon, making false
statements in connection with sale of firearms, and
conspiracy filed posttrial motions....
Jun. 24, 1977 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by 323. Snipes v. Reynolds
2008 WL 4457895, *15+ , D.S.C. , (NO. C/A
0073516CMCMAGCIV )
This matter is before the court on Petitioner's
application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in this
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and...
Sep. 25, 2008 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
324. U.S. v. Wright
2012 WL 3778986, *7+ , E.D.Tenn. , (NO. 3:10-
CR-161 )
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred
to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)
for disposition or report and recommendation
regarding disposition by the...
Jun. 19, 2012 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
325. U.S. v. Smith
2009 WL 3932193, *2+ , E.D.Tenn. , (NO. 3:08-
CR-111 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Defendant
presented no proof government delayed bringing
drug distribution charges in order to gain a tactical
advantage as there was evidence...
Nov. 18, 2009 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
326. U.S. v. Clemons
2009 WL 1472693, *1+ , E.D.Tenn. , (NO. 3:08-
CR-102 )
There being no timely objection by defendant,
see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and the court being in
complete agreement with the magistrate judge, the
Report and Recommendation (R & R)...
May 19, 2009 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
327. U.S. v. Cole
2008 WL 743969, *6+ , M.D.Tenn. , (NO.
3:07-00093 )
This is a criminal case in which the Defendants, all
of whom were employees of Lu, Inc., are alleged
to have assisted James Whitaker (''Whitaker'') in
fraudulently obtaining Social...
Mar. 19, 2008 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
328. U.S. v. Lazar
2004 WL 3142230, *1+ , W.D.Tenn. , (NO.
04-20017-DV )
An indictment was returned by the grand jury on
January 20, 2004 charging the defendant, Rande
H. Lazar (Lazar), M.D. d/b/a Otolaryngology
Consultants of Memphis, with devising...
Oct. 06, 2004 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 329. Hollines v. Estelle
569 F.Supp. 146, 152+ , W.D.Tex. , (NO. CIV.
W-81-CA-21 )
On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the District
Court, Nowlin, J., held that: (1) the petitioner's Sixth
Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated;
(2)...
Feb. 04, 1983 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
330. U.S. v. Phelps
2006 WL 2303116, *1+ , D.Vt. , (NO. 1:06CR4-03 )
On February 1, 2006, a federal grand jury indicted
Robert Phelps and others on criminal charges
of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
Defendant Phelps contends that the...
Aug. 08, 2006 Case
4
5
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
331. Oppelt v. Glebe
2012 WL 3278904, *2+ , W.D.Wash. , (NO.
C12-223 JCC )
This matter comes before the Court on the petition
for writ of habeas corpus of petitioner David Oppelt,
Jr (Dkt. No. 1), the report and recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge...
Aug. 10, 2012 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
332. Schubert v. Quinn
2009 WL 1009890, *10+ , W.D.Wash. , (NO.
C08-660-RSL )
The Court, having reviewed petitioner's petition for
writ of habeas corpus, respondent's answer to the
petition, the Report and Recommendation of the
Honorable James P. Donohue,...
Apr. 13, 2009 Case
3
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
333. Ali v. Baenen
2013 WL 4591980, *2+ , W.D.Wis. , (NO. 12-
CV-841-BBC )
Petitioner Ouati Ali, a prisoner at the Green Bay
Correctional Institution, has filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He
is challenging a 2007...
Aug. 28, 2013 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
334. U.S. v. Vanderbloomen
2012 WL 6161190, *2+ , E.D.Wis. , (NO. 12-
CR-68 )
Defendant Donald J. Vanderbloomen was charged
in a two-count indictment on March 27, 2012,
with knowingly receiving and possessing child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. ...
Nov. 19, 2012 Case
3
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
335. U.S. v. LaTender
464 F.Supp. 607, 609+ , E.D.Wis. , (NO. 78-
CR-166 )
Defendant moved for release of presentence report
and moved to dismiss claiming that prosecution was
improper in that, among other things, he was denied
his right to speedy trial. ...
Jan. 22, 1979 Case
3
6
7
S.Ct.
Discussed by
336. Robinson v. U.S.
2011 WL 6887136, *5+ , N.D.W.Va. , (NO. 3:10-
CR-17 , 3:11-CV-3 )
On January 13, 2011, PetitionerDefendant Michael
Lynn Robinson (Petitioner), proceeding pro se,
filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence...
Nov. 02, 2011 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
337. Sanders v. U.S.
2008 WL 2704523, *6+ , N.D.W.Va. , (NO. CIV.A.
1:06CV181 , CRIM.1:05CR102 )
On December 22, 2006, pro se petitioner, Marcus
Ronald Sanders, (''Sanders'') filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
The Court referred this...
Jul. 03, 2008 Case
7
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 338. Pereira v. Government of Virgin Islands
2008 WL 5632270, *4+ , D.Virgin Islands , (NO.
CRIM. 2003/035 , CRIM. 270/2002 )
In this appeal, we are asked to decide: 1) Whether
there was substantial evidence for a rational juror
to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
where the victim...
Feb. 27, 2008 Case
Discussed by 339. Government of Virgin Islands v. Moncayo

1994 WL 594702, *4+ , D.Virgin Islands , (NO.
1993-0099 )
Before the court is defendant Jose Moncayo's
Motion To Dismiss For Prosecutorial Delay. The
prosecution responded and a hearing on this matter
was held on August 24, 1993, and...
Aug. 25, 1993 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 340. People of Territory of Guam v. Salas
1979 WL 15101, *2+ , D.Guam A.D. , (NO. D.C.
CRIM.78-00022A )
Appellant was found guilty of Unlawful,
Unauthorized Delivery of a Controlled Substance
(Heroin) on October 14, 1977. Judgment was
entered against him on December 9, 1977, at...
Nov. 21, 1979 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 341. U.S. v. Busby
1996 WL 927938, *4+ , N.M.Ct.Crim.App. , (NO.
NMCM 9601087 )
This case comes to us by Government appeal filed
pursuant to Article 62, Uniform Code of Military
Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. 862. The accused
faces four criminal charges at a...
Sep. 04, 1996 Case
6
7
S.Ct.
Discussed by
342. U.S. v. Reeves
34 M.J. 1261, 1261+ , NMCMR , (NO. NMCM
920411 M )
Accused was charged with committing indecent acts
with child. Military judge granted defense motion
to dismiss charge on basis that Government failed
to bring case to speedy...
May 21, 1992 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
343. U. S. v. McGraner
13 M.J. 408, 413+ , CMA , (NO. 37,849 , AMC
S24687 )
Accused technical sergeant, United States Air
Force, was convicted by a special court-martial of
possession of amphetamine and possession, use
and transfer and sale of marihuana,...
Aug. 02, 1982 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by 344. Riland v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
79 T.C. 185, 197+ , U.S.Tax Ct. , (NO. 6854-79 )
1. The Department of Justice's files relating
to petitioner-husband were lost in 1973, but
subsequently recovered. Held, the loss of such files
does not constitute a violation of...
Aug. 02, 1982 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by
345. Cherry v. State
933 So.2d 377, 380+ , Ala.Crim.App. , (NO.
CR-02-0374 )
Preindictment delay of 37 years did not violate
defendant's due process rights.
Oct. 01, 2004 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
346. Blanton v. State
CR-00-1665 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Homicide. Defendant failed
to establish actual prejudice resulting from 37 year
delay between murder offense and time of trial.
Aug. 29, 2003 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
347. State v. Prince
CR-89-1076 )
State appealed from order of the Circuit Court,
Jefferson County, William H. Cole, J., which
dismissed charge of carnal knowledge against
defendant. The Court of Criminal...
Jan. 18, 1991 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
348. Stoner v. State
418 So.2d 171, 179+ , Ala.Crim.App. , (NO. 6 DIV.
342 )
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court,
Jefferson County, Charles R. Crowder, J., of
unlawfully exploding dynamite dangerously near an
inhabited dwelling, and he appealed. ...
Apr. 20, 1982 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
349. Chambliss v. State
373 So.2d 1185, 1203+ , Ala.Crim.App. , (NO. 6
DIV. 689 )
Jefferson County, Wallace Gibson, J., of first-
degree murder and he appealed. The Court of
Criminal Appeals, Harris, P. J., held...
May 22, 1979 Case
3
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
350. Burke v. State
624 P.2d 1240, 1242+ , Alaska , (NO. 2194 , 3969 )
Third Judicial District, Mark C. Rowland, J., of
statutory rape, and he appealed. The Supreme
Court, Rabinowitz, C. J., held that:...
Oct. 24, 1980 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
351. State v. Montano
65 P.3d 61, 67+ , Ariz. , (NO. CR-99-0439-AP )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Homicide. Confrontation
clause rights were not violated by admission of
videotaped testimony.
Mar. 17, 2003 Case
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
352. State v. Lacy
929 P.2d 1288, 1294+ , Ariz. , (NO. CR-93-0402-
AP )
Defendant was convicted of two counts of
first-degree murder and sentenced to death
by the Superior Court, Pima County, No. CR
36160,William N. Sherrill, J. On automatic
appeal,...
Dec. 31, 1996 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
353. State v. Broughton
752 P.2d 483, 486+ , Ariz. , (NO. CR-86-0062-AP )
Pinal County, E.D. McBryde, J., of dangerous or
deadly assault by a prisoner, and he appealed.
The Supreme Court, Moeller, J., held...
Mar. 01, 1988 Case
3
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
354. State v. Hall
633 P.2d 398, 402+ , Ariz. , (NO. 4727 , 4728 )
Defendants were convicted before the Superior
Court, Pinal County, Cause No. 7963, E. D.
McBryde, J., of first-degree murder and first-degree
conspiracy, and they appealed. The...
Jul. 21, 1981 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
355. State v. Young
2012 WL 642852, *3+ , Ariz.App. Div. 2 , (NO. 2
CA-CR 2010-0164 )
1 Appellant Ronald Young was convicted after
a jury trial of conspiracy to commit first-degree
murder and first-degree murder. He was sentenced
to consecutive prison terms of...
Feb. 29, 2012 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
356. State v. Skaggs
2010 WL 702456, *10+ , Ariz.App. Div. 2 , (NO. 2
CA-CR 2007-0136 )
1 Appellant Gary Skaggs was convicted after a
jury trial of two counts of first-degree murder. On
appeal, he challenges his convictions on numerous
grounds, arguing the trial...
Feb. 26, 2010 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
357. State v. Monaco
83 P.3d 553, 559+ , Ariz.App. Div. 2 , (NO. 2CA-CR
2002-0466 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sentencing. Doctrines of
sentence entrapment and sentence manipulation
not available.
Jan. 22, 2004 Case
3
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
358. State v. Lemming
937 P.2d 381, 384+ , Ariz.App. Div. 1 , (NO. 1 CA-
CR 96-0496 )
Defendant was charged with aggravated driving
while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI).
The Superior Court, Maricopa County, No. CR
96-01680, Michael A. Yarnell,...
Apr. 17, 1997 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
359. State v. Medina
CR 96-0439 )
Defendant charged with aggravated driving while
under influence of intoxicating liquor moved to
dismiss. The Superior Court, Maricopa County,
Cause No. CR 96-01280, William L....
Apr. 17, 1997 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
360. State v. Dunlap
CR 94-0068 )
Maricopa County, Howard F. Thompson, J., of first-
degree murder and first-degree conspiracy, and
defendant appealed. The Supreme...
Sep. 05, 1996 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
361. State v. Van Arsdale
653 P.2d 36, 38+ , Ariz.App. Div. 1 , (NO. 1 CA-CR
5471 )
State appealed from an order of the Superior Court,
Maricopa County, Cause No. CR116900, Marilyn
A. Riddel, J., dismissing prosecution on grounds of
preindictment delay. The...
Aug. 10, 1982 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
362. Young v. State
685 S.W.2d 823, 825+ , Ark.App. , (NO. CACR
84-111 )
Jefferson County, H.A. Taylor, J., of rape,
sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, and he
appealed. The Court of Appeals, Cracraft,...
Mar. 13, 1985 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
363. Serna v. Superior Court
219 Cal.Rptr. 420, 440+ , Cal. , (NO. L.A. 31856 )
Petitioner, a defendant in pending misdemeanor
prosecution, sought writ of mandate to compel
municipal court to grant motion to dismiss on
grounds of more than four-year delay...
Oct. 24, 1985 Case
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
364. People v. Cotton
2013 WL 3214239, *6+ , Cal.App. 2 Dist. , (NO.
B235980 , B242501 )
Defendant and appellant, Wesley Stanley Cotton,
appeals his conviction, by no contest plea, for rape
and forcible sodomy, with an enhancement for
aggravating circumstances (during...
Jun. 26, 2013 Case
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
365. People v. Clarke
2008 WL 2589196, *12+ , Cal.App. 4 Dist. , (NO.
E044238 )
On September 24, 1997, alleged incidents of
child molestation, occurring sometime between
November 1994 and June 1995, were reported to
the police. The People filed a complaint...
Jul. 01, 2008 Case
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
366. People v. Boysen
62 Cal.Rptr.3d 350, 356+ , Cal.App. 4 Dist. , (NO.
D046763 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Dismissal of
murder charges for 24-year preaccusation delay
was proper.
Jul. 03, 2007 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
367. People v. Litmon
2007 WL 1219972, *7+ , Cal.App. 6 Dist. , (NO.
H029335 )
David Litmon, Jr., appeals from a September 7,
2005 order recommitting him as a sexually violent
predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator
Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst.Code, ...
Apr. 26, 2007 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
368. People v. Gilmore
2003 WL 21137842, *5+ , Cal.App. 3 Dist. , (NO.
C039370 )
Background: Defendant was convicted in the
Superior Court, Sacramento County, No. 00F05191,
of two counts of attempted murder. Defendant
appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeal,...
May 16, 2003 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
369. People v. Koiyan
2002 WL 31440158, *1+ , Cal.App. 5 Dist. , (NO.
F038101 )
Kern County, Richard J. Oberholzer, J., of
committing a lewd act on his daughter, a child 14 or
15 years of age, and with sexual...
Nov. 01, 2002 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
370. People v. Small
631 P.2d 148, 157+ , Colo. , (NO. 79SA166 ,
79SA385 )
Defendant was convicted before the District Court,
El Paso County, William Rhodes, J., of first-
degree murder, and he took two appeals. After
consolidation of the appeals, the...
Jun. 22, 1981 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
371. State v. John
557 A.2d 93, 110+ , Conn. , (NO. 13056 , 13057 )
After joint trial, defendants were convicted in the
Superior Court, Judicial District of New London,
Walsh, J., one defendant of felony-murder and
larceny in second degree, a...
Apr. 11, 1989 Case
3
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
372. State v. Littlejohn
508 A.2d 1376, 1384+ , Conn. , (NO. 12159 ,
12304 )
Defendant was convicted of murder in the Superior
Court, Judicial District of Tolland, Byrne, J., and he
appealed. The Supreme Court, Arthur H. Healey, J.,
held that: (1)...
May 13, 1986 Case
3
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
373. U.S. v. Day
697 A.2d 31, 33+ , D.C. , (NO. 96-CO-1076 )
Government appealed from order of the Superior
Court, Evelyn E. Queen, J., dismissing indictment
for negligent homicide. The Court of Appeals, Reid,
J., held that: (1)...
Jun. 26, 1997 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
374. Harrison v. U.S.
528 A.2d 1238, 1239+ , D.C. , (NO. 86-637 )
Colleen Kollar Kotelly, J., on three counts of
distributing heroin and he appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Terry, J., held that:...
Jul. 30, 1987 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
375. Robinson v. U.S.
478 A.2d 1065, 1066+ , D.C. , (NO. 82-793 )
Reggie B. Walton, J., of selling heroin to an
undercover police officer, and he appealed. The
Court of Appeals, Gallagher, J.,...
Jul. 06, 1984 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
376. U. S. v. Donaldson
451 A.2d 51, 55+ , D.C. , (NO. 81-64 )
Appeal was taken from a decision of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, George H.
Revercomb, J., dismissing a prosecution on the
grounds that the defendant's alibi...
Sep. 15, 1982 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 377. Asbell v. U. S.
436 A.2d 804, 812+ , D.C. , (NO. 14163 , 79-1275 )
Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia, John R. Hess, J., of
robbery and second-degree burglary, and he
appealed. The District of Columbia Court...
Sep. 09, 1981 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
378. Johnson v. U. S.
434 A.2d 415, 418+ , D.C. , (NO. 79-391 , 79-404 )
Defendants were convicted in the Superior Court,
District of Columbia, H. Carl Moultrie I, J., of armed
robbery and they appealed. The Court of Appeals,
Harris, J., held that: (1)...
Aug. 04, 1981 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
379. Smith v. U.S.
414 A.2d 1189, 1194+ , D.C. , (NO. 13697 )
Robert H. Campbell, J., of second-degree murder
while armed and unlawful possession of a pistol,
and defendant appealed. The Court...
Apr. 30, 1980 Case
4
9
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
380. U. S. v. Alston
412 A.2d 351, 356+ , D.C. , (NO. 13506 )
Following remand, 383 A.2d 307, the Superior
Court, District of Columbia, John R. Hess, Hearing
Judge, dismissed an indictment by reason of
governmental delay during the appellate...
Feb. 07, 1980 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
381. State v. Hope
1D11-4787 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Arrest. Court acted within its
discretion in finding actual prejudice regarding pre-
arrest delay.
Jun. 18, 2012 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 382. Howell v. State
AD-343 )
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere and was
adjudicated guilty by the Circuit Court for Alachua
County, John J. Crews, J., of selling, delivering or
possessing cannabis with intent...
Aug. 31, 1982 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
383. Jackson v. State
614 S.E.2d 781, 783+ , Ga. , (NO. S05A0216 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Homicide. Delay of
approximately 24 years between murder and
defendant's indictment did not deny him due
process of law.
Jun. 16, 2005 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
384. Madden v. State
248 S.E.2d 37, 39+ , Ga.App. , (NO. 55958 )
Defendant charged with sale of heroin filed motion
to dismiss indictment. The Fulton Superior Court,
Weltner, J., denied defendant's motion to dismiss,
and defendant appealed. ...
Jul. 14, 1978 Case
6
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
385. State v. Higa
74 P.3d 6, 11+ , Hawai'i , (NO. 23262 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Preindictment
delay did not substantially prejudice defendant's
due process right to a fair trial.
Jul. 29, 2003 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
386. State v. English
594 P.2d 1069, 1073+ , Hawai'i , (NO. 6210 , 6211 )
State appealed from order entered by the First
Circuit Court, City and County of Honolulu, Walter
M. Heen, J., dismissing indictments against juvenile
defendant. The Supreme...
May 11, 1978 Case
3
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
387. State v. Powers
603 P.2d 569, 570+ , Idaho , (NO. 12639 )
Second Judicial District, Clearwater County,
John H. Maynard, J., of delivery of a controlled
substance, and he appealed. The Supreme...
Nov. 26, 1979 Case
7
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
388. State v. Crockett
263 P.3d 139, 144+ , Idaho App. , (NO. 37141 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Delay in
prosecution caused by refiling did not violate
defendant's right to due process or to speedy trial.
Jun. 10, 2011 Case
3
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
389. People v. Lawson
367 N.E.2d 1244, 1249+ , Ill. , (NO. 48554 , 48637 ,
48703 )
State appealed from orders of the Circuit Court,
Macon County, Donald W. Morthland and Albert G.
Webber, III, JJ., which dismissed indictments on the
basis of preindictment delay. ...
Jun. 01, 1977 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
390. Allen v. State
813 N.E.2d 349, 366+ , Ind.App. , (NO.
33A04-0305-CR-249 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Identification. Pretrial
identification of defendant was not unduly
suggestive.
Aug. 09, 2004 Case
3
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by 391. McMorris v. State
392 N.E.2d 820, 822+ , Ind.App. 3 Dist. , (NO.
3-878A201 )
Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, St.
Joseph County, E. Spencer Walton, J., of delivery of
a controlled substance, and he appealed. The Court
of Appeals, Garrard, P....
Aug. 01, 1979 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
392. State v. Trompeter
555 N.W.2d 468, 470+ , Iowa , (NO. 95-1780 )
On defendant's eighteenth birthday, state filed
information charging second-degree sexual abuse
almost three years earlier. The District Court,
Emmet County, Frank B. Nelson, J.,...
Oct. 23, 1996 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
393. State v. Crume
22 P.3d 1057, 1062+ , Kan. , (NO. 83361 )
Seventeen-year pre-indictment delay did not violate
due process.
Apr. 20, 2001 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
394. State v. Smallwood
955 P.2d 1209, 1218+ , Kan. , (NO. 77,097 )
Defendant was convicted, in the District Court,
Montgomery County, Jack D. Lively, J., of felony
murder and two counts of child abuse. Defendant
appealed. The Supreme Court,...
Mar. 06, 1998 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
395. State v. McCorgary
585 P.2d 1024, 1028+ , Kan. , (NO. 49069 )
On remand from a prior appeal, 218 Kan. 358, 543
P.2d 952, defendant was convicted in the District
Court, Sedgwick County, James V. Riddel, Jr., J., of
murder, and he appealed. The...
Oct. 28, 1978 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
396. State v. Potts
713 P.2d 967, 969+ , Kan.App. , (NO. 57,651 )
Defendant was convicted in the Sedgwick District
Court, D. Keith Anderson, J., of four counts of
selling drugs, and he appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Fred. S. Jackson, District...
Feb. 06, 1986 Case
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
397. Graham v. Com.
319 S.W.3d 331, 342+ , Ky. , (NO. 2009-
SC-000069-MR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Trial. Reinstatement of
murder charges twenty-six years after hung jury did
not violate due process.
Aug. 26, 2010 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
398. State v. Malvo
357 So.2d 1084, 1085+ , La. , (NO. 58918 )
Defendant was convicted in the 14th Judicial District
Court, Parish of Calcasieu, Warren E. Hood, J., of
distribution of heroin and he appealed. Following
remand for consideration...
Apr. 10, 1978 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
399. State v. G.R.H.
2009 WL 1545606, *13+ , La.App. 3 Cir. , (NO.
08-1549 )
Defendant, G.R.H., was charged with one count of
aggravated rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42; and
two counts of molestation of a juvenile, violations of
La.R.S. 14:81.2. After a...
Jun. 03, 2009 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
400. State v. Smith
809 So.2d 556, 560+ , La.App. 1 Cir. , (NO. 2001
KW 1027 )
Defendant was not prejudiced by 21year
preindictment delay in aggravated rape case.
Feb. 15, 2002 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
401. State v. Dickerson
529 So.2d 434, 438+ , La.App. 1 Cir. , (NO. 88 KA
0050 )
Defendant was convicted of second-degree
murder and aggravated kidnapping by the Twenty-
First Judicial District Court, Tangipahoa Parish,
Cleveland Marcel, J. ad hor, and defendant...
Jun. 21, 1988 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
402. Com. v. Best
411 N.E.2d 442, 450+ , Mass.
Defendant and codefendant were convicted in the
Superior Court, Middlesex County, Young, J., of
murder in the first degree, and they appealed. The
Supreme Judicial Court, Kaplan,...
Sep. 05, 1980 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 403. Com. v. Imbruglia
387 N.E.2d 559, 563+ , Mass.
Tamburello, J., of receiving stolen securities and
of possession of counterfeit currency with intent to
pass the same as true. ...
Apr. 02, 1979 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 404. Com. v. Geoghegan
427 N.E.2d 941, 943+ , Mass.App.Ct. , (NO.
81-339 )
Appeal was taken by the Commonwealth from the
order of the Southern Norfolk Division of the District
Court, Greenberg, J., dismissing with prejudice a
complaint for nonsupport. ...
Nov. 06, 1981 Case
2
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
405. State v. Gee
471 A.2d 712, 713+ , Md. , (NO. 81 SEPT. TERM
1983 )
Baltimore County, John E. Raine, Jr., J., of robbery
with deadly weapon and use of handgun in that
crime, and he appealed. The Court...
Feb. 23, 1984 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by
406. Smallwood v. State
443 A.2d 1003, 1004+ , Md.App. , (NO. 1066 )
Calvert County, Perry G. Bowen, Jr., J., of bank
robbery, and he appealed. The Court of Special
Appeals, Gilbert, C. J., held that:...
Apr. 13, 1982 Case
5
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
407. State v. Hutchins
433 A.2d 419, 422+ , Me. , (NO. 2710 )
Knox County, of aggravated assault, and he
appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court, McKusick,
C.J., held that: (1) trial court did not...
Aug. 13, 1981 Case
3
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by 408. Order on Motions to Suppress
Maine v. Mitchell
2008 WL 9434576, *4+ , Me.Super. (Trial Order) ,
(NO. CR-06-937 )
Before the court are three motions to suppress, a
motion to dismiss, a motion for discovery and bill
of particulars, a motion to inspect and test items of
tangible evidence, and a...
Nov. 18, 2008 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 409. State v. Williamson
2004 WL 1925566, *6+ , Me.Super. , (NO.
CR-03-580 )
Pending before the court is the defendant's motion
to dismiss which seeks to have an indictment
charging him with two counts of Unlawful Sexual
Contact dismissed because the...
Jul. 19, 2004 Case
Discussed by 410. State v. Klindt

400 N.W.2d 127, 130+ , Minn.App. , (NO.
C6-86-1585 )
Following conviction on guilty plea to charge of
uttering forged instrument, the District Court,
Stearns County, Paul Hoffman, J., revoked
defendant's probation and imposed...
Feb. 03, 1987 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 411. State v. Forbord
398 N.W.2d 618, 620+ , Minn.App. , (NO.
C9-86-933 )
Defendant was convicted before the District Court,
Swift County, R. A. Bodger, J., of possession and
sale of marijuana, and he appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Leslie, J., held...
Dec. 30, 1986 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
412. Killen v. State
958 So.2d 172, 189+ , Miss. , (NO. 2005-KA-01393-
SCT )
Forty-one year delay in bringing indictment for
murder did not violate defendant's due process
rights.
Apr. 12, 2007 Case
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
413. State v. Woodall
801 So.2d 678, 682+ , Miss. , (NO. 1999-KA-01654-
SCT )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. One-year delay
between defendant's arrest and indictment did not
violate Sixth Amendment.
Nov. 29, 2001 Case
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
414. State v. Passmore
225 P.3d 1229, 1239+ , Mont. , (NO. DA 08-0267 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Preaccusation Delay.
Defendant did not suffer actual, substantial
prejudice from preaccusation delay.
Feb. 16, 2010 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
415. State v. Krinitt
823 P.2d 848, 852+ , Mont. , (NO. 91-210 )
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of
the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County,
Larry W. Moran, J., of theft, and he appealed. The
Supreme Court, Trieweiler,...
Dec. 12, 1991 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
416. State v. Curtis
787 P.2d 306, 310+ , Mont. , (NO. 89-422 )
Defendant was convicted in the Fourth Judicial
District Court, Ravalli County, Jeffrey Sherlock, J.,
of felony theft from a checking account and of a
certificate of deposit...
Feb. 09, 1990 Case
8
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
417. State v. Goltz
642 P.2d 1079, 1081+ , Mont. , (NO. 81-267 )
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of the
Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of
Cascade, Joel G. Roth, J., of felony theft, and she
appealed. The Supreme...
Apr. 01, 1982 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
418. State v. McCoy
277 S.E.2d 515, 522+ , N.C. , (NO. 88 )
Wilson County, J. Herbert Small, J., of second-
degree murder, and he appealed. The Supreme
Court, Exum, J., held that: (1)...
May 05, 1981 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
419. State v. McGuire
254 S.E.2d 165, 172+ , N.C. , (NO. 57 )
Defendants were convicted in Superior Court,
Catawba County, Forrest A. Ferrell, J., on armed
robbery and burglary charges arising from the
common scheme and they appealed. The...
Apr. 20, 1979 Case
4
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
420. State v. Netcliff
448 S.E.2d 311, 313+ , N.C.App. , (NO.
9312SC1084 )
Speedy Trial. Preindictment delay did not deprive
defendant of due process.
Sep. 20, 1994 Case
2
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 421. State v. Denny
350 N.W.2d 25, 27+ , N.D. , (NO. CR. 963 )
Defendant was convicted in District Court, Williams
County, William M. Beede, J., of delivery of a
controlled substance, and he appealed. The
Supreme Court, Sand, J., held that: ...
May 10, 1984 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
422. Wyman v. State
217 P.3d 572, 578+ , Nev. , (NO. 50218 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Witnesses. Defendant
accused of 32-year-old murder was prejudiced by
denial of subpoena for state witness' mental health
records.
Oct. 08, 2009 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
423. State v. Autry
746 P.2d 637, 638+ , Nev. , (NO. 18414 )
Petitioner sought pretrial writ of habeas corpus
seeking dismissal of charges against him. The
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, James
Brennan, J., granted petition....
Dec. 10, 1987 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
880 A.2d 419, 422+ , N.H. , (NO. 2004-356 )
Murder defendant failed to demonstrate he had
suffered actual prejudice due to pre-indictment
delay.
Jul. 29, 2005 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
425. State v. Townsend
897 A.2d 316, 325+ , N.J. , (NO. A-112
SEPT.TERM 2004 , A-113 SEPT.TERM 2004 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Homicide. Expert testimony
concerning traits of undiagnosed battered woman's
syndrome was admissible in murder prosecution.
May 15, 2006 Case
3
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
426. State v. Townsend
863 A.2d 380, 385+ , N.J.Super.A.D. , (NO.
A-4898-02T4 )
More than 20 year delay between incident and
issuance of murder indictment did not violate due
process.
Jan. 03, 2005 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 427. State v. Alexander
708 A.2d 770, 772+ , N.J.Super.A.D. , (NO.
A-1911-96T4 )
Pre-indictment delay did not cause defendant actual
prejudice so as to give rise to due process violation.
Apr. 29, 1998 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
428. State v. Aguirre
670 A.2d 583, 585+ , N.J.Super.A.D. , (NO.
A-6712-94T1 )
Speedy Trial. Preindictment delay did not violate
due process clause.
Jan. 26, 1996 Case
3
6
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
429. Gonzales v. State
805 P.2d 630, 631+ , N.M. , (NO. 19,125 )
Bernalillo County, Rebecca Sitterly, D.J., of larceny
and conspiracy and he appealed. The Court of
Appeals affirmed, 110 N.M. 218,...
Feb. 11, 1991 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 430. Kilpatrick v. State
702 P.2d 997, 998+ , N.M. , (NO. 15,673 )
Richard B. Traub, D.J., of aggravated assault, and
he appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and
defendant petitioned for...
Jul. 11, 1985 Case
2
S.Ct.
Discussed by 431. People v. Almonte
740 N.Y.S.2d 763, 767+ , N.Y.Sup. , (NO. 8582/98 )
Lack of judicial approval necessitated re-
presentation of indictment.
Feb. 15, 2002 Case
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
432. People v. McCrorey
690 N.Y.S.2d 816, 819+ , N.Y.Sup. , (NO.
10500/97 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Preindictment Delay.
Sixteen-year delay between identification as murder
suspect and indictment did not violate due process.
Feb. 25, 1999 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by 433. People v. Guzman
620 N.Y.S.2d 227, 230+ , N.Y.Sup. , (NO. 5323/94 ,
94-624 )
Speedy Trial. A 49-month delay between alleged
rape and accusation deprived defendant of due
process.
Nov. 14, 1994 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
434. People v. Juan R.
589 N.Y.S.2d 256, 259+ , N.Y.Sup. , (NO. 2240/91 ,
2982 )
Pre-indictment Delay. Defendant not entitled to
dismissal for pre-indictment delay.
Jun. 16, 1992 Case
7
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
435. People v. Bryant
398 N.Y.S.2d 216, 220+ , N.Y.Sup.
Defendants charged with criminal sale of controlled
substance in the second degree and criminal sale
of controlled substance in the third degree moved to
dismiss indictment. The...
Jul. 29, 1977 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
436. State v. Luck
472 N.E.2d 1097, 1102+ , Ohio , (NO. 84-138 )
Defendant who was charged with murder filed
motions to suppress and to dismiss indictment.
The Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
granted both motions, and the Court of...
Dec. 31, 1984 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 437. State v. Yates
421 N.E.2d 855, 857+ , Ohio , (NO. 80-1010 )
Defendant charged with grand theft sought to
suppress wage information obtained by county
welfare department. The Trial Court, Cuyahoga
County, determined that use of forms for...
May 27, 1981 Case
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
438. State v. Zich
L-09-1184 )
{ 1} Appellant, Thomas Zich, appeals from a
murder conviction entered by the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas, in the above-captioned
case. For the reasons that follow, we...
Dec. 16, 2011 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
439. State v. Adams
08 MA 246 )
{ 1} Defendant-appellant Bennie Adams appeals
from his conviction of aggravated murder and the
accompanying death sentence which was entered
in the Mahoning County Common Pleas...
Oct. 14, 2011 Case
5
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
440. State v. Robinson
L-06-1182 )
{ 1} Appellant, Gerald Robinson, appeals his
conviction for murder entered by the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas in the above-captioned
case. For the reasons that follow, we...
Jul. 11, 2008 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
441. State v. Davis
2007 WL 4696960, *3+ , Ohio App. 7 Dist. , (NO. 05
MA 235 )
{ 1} Appellant Lawrence Davis was convicted in
the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas on
five counts of drug trafficking. He is now appealing
his conviction based on alleged...
Dec. 18, 2007 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 442. State v. Oliver
06-CA-126 )
{ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan Oliver, appeals
from the judgment of conviction and sentence
entered after Appellant pled no contest to one count
of Possession of Cocaine, a...
Oct. 12, 2007 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
443. State v. Warren
859 N.E.2d 998, 1002+ , Ohio App. 8 Dist. , (NO.
86854 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. A 16-year
delay between rape of child and indictment did not
violate due process.
Aug. 10, 2006 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 444. State v. Pietrangelo
2003-L-125 )
Background: Defendant was convicted in the
Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, No. 02 CR
000676, of one count of drug trafficking, a felony of
the fifth degree, and ordered to pay...
Apr. 08, 2005 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
445. State v. Maxwell
99AP-1177 )
Defendant-appellant, Mark W. Maxwell, appeals
from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas whereby appellant was convicted of
one count of compelling prostitution,...
Sep. 14, 2000 Case
4
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 446. State v. Flickinger
CA 09 )
This is an appeal from an Athens County Common
Pleas Court judgment finding William R. Flickinger,
defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of
aggravated trafficking in drugs...
Jan. 19, 1999 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 447. State v. Fisher
98CAA07036 )
In early 1994, Appellant Thomas Fisher was
investigated in connection with the sexual abuse
of his adopted son. As a result, in February, 1994,
appellant was questioned, by police,...
Jan. 04, 1999 Case
2
4
S.Ct.
Discussed by
448. State v. Graham
1999 WL 3964, *6+ , Ohio App. 5 Dist. , (NO. 97 CA
126 )
Appellant Daniel Graham is appealing his
conviction, in the Licking County Court of Common
Pleas, of aggravated murder. The following facts
give rise to this appeal. Appellant and...
Nov. 30, 1998 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
449. State v. Duncan
1999 WL 3965, *3+ , Ohio App. 5 Dist. , (NO. 97 CA
134 )
Appellant Paul Duncan is appealing his conviction,
in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, of
aggravated murder. The following facts give rise to
this appeal. Appellant and...
Nov. 30, 1998 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 450. State v. Metz
CA 48 )
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction
and sentence entered by the Washington County
Common Pleas Court. The jury found Larry Stephen
Metz, defendant below and appellant...
Apr. 21, 1998 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
451. State v. Doksa
680 N.E.2d 1043, 1045+ , Ohio App. 8 Dist. , (NO.
70354 )
Indictment and Information. Issuance of indictment
more than five years after date of alleged offense
constituted excessive preindictment delay in
violation of due process clause.
Aug. 05, 1996 Case
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
452. State v. Towns
64513 )
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and
the subsequent sentencing of Emmanuel Towns,
defendant-appellant, by the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas after a bench...
Feb. 03, 1994 Case
4
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
453. State v. Hubbard
CA92-03-058 )
Defendant-appellant, Edward Hubbard, was
originally arrested on November 8, 1990 by the
Hamilton City Police for possession of dangerous
drugs and having weapons while under...
Nov. 16, 1992 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
454. State v. Floyd
L-89-277 )
This cause is an appeal from a judgment from the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The facts
of this case are as follows. On August 8, 1988,
appellant, Tyrone Floyd, allegedly...
Oct. 26, 1990 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
455. City of Canton v. Pleasant
CA-7775 )
Following a plea of no contest, defendant-appellant
was found guilty of failure to report an accident
within twenty-four hours, in violation of Canton City
Ordinance Section...
Aug. 14, 1989 Case
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 456. State v. Ortiz
1003 )
The appellant entered a no contest plea to a three
count drug related indictment, was found guilty
and sentenced. Sentence was suspended under
conditions of probation. Motions to...
Oct. 20, 1978 Case
6
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
457. Garrison v. State
103 P.3d 590, 598+ , Okla.Crim.App. , (NO.
D-2001-1513 )
Ten-year delay between murder offense and filing of
murder charge did not prejudice defendant.
Nov. 30, 2004 Case
4
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
458. Fritz v. State
F-88-892 )
Pontotoc County, Ronald L. Jones, J., of first-
degree murder, and he appealed. The Court of
Criminal Appeals, Lumpkin, V.P.J., held...
May 15, 1991 Case
9
10
11
S.Ct.
Discussed by
459. Williamson v. State
F-88-501 )
Pontotoc County, Ronald L. Jones, J., of capital
murder and was sentenced to death. Defendant
appealed. The Court of Criminal...
May 15, 1991 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
460. Green v. State
F-81-797 , F-81-798 )
Defendants were convicted in the District Court,
Pittsburg County, Robert A. Layden, J., of murder in
first degree, and sentenced to death. Defendants
appealed. The Court of...
Oct. 09, 1985 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
461. Com. v. Snyder
761 A.2d 584, 585+ , Pa.Super. , (NO.
1557HARRISBURG1998 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Pre-Arrest Delay. Prosecutor
had valid reasons for pre-arrest delay of over 11
years, as required by due process.
Oct. 17, 2000 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
462. Com. v. Kysor
482 A.2d 1095, 1097+ , Pa.Super. , (NO. 00074 , J.
53011/84 )
The Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division,
Erie County, No. 1455 of 1982, Anthony, J., denied
defendant's motion to quash criminal information for
homicide, and defendant...
Oct. 05, 1984 Case
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by 463. Com. v. Arnold
480 A.2d 1066, 1074+ , Pa.Super. , (NO. 1717 , J.
06009/84 )
Defendant was convicted in the Court of Common
Pleas, Criminal Division, of Bradford County, No.
801026 A and B, C.A., Williams, J., of first-degree
murder, theft and kidnapping,...
Jun. 29, 1984 Case
7
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 464. Com. v. Murphy
451 A.2d 514, 517+ , Pa.Super. , (NO. 2457 ,
2458 )
Commonwealth appealed from an order of the Court
of Common Pleas, Trial Division, Criminal Section,
Philadelphia County, Nos. 810-815 November
Term, 1978, McDermott, J., dismissing...
Oct. 01, 1982 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
465. State v. Vanasse
593 A.2d 58, 64+ , R.I. , (NO. 90-142-C.A. )
Two defendants were convicted of first-degree
sexual assault. Judgment was entered in the
Superior Court, Providence County, Ragosta, J.
Defendants appealed. The Supreme...
Jun. 19, 1991 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
466. State v. Stock
361 N.W.2d 280, 282+ , S.D. , (NO. 14386 )
Fourth Judicial Circuit, McCook County, George
W. Wuest, J., of receiving stolen property, and he
Jan. 16, 1985 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 467. State v. Baker
614 S.W.2d 352, 354+ , Tenn.
The State appealed from judgment entered by the
Criminal Court, Knox County, George P. Balistsaris,
J., dismissing presentments against defendant. The
Court of Criminal Appeals...
Apr. 13, 1981 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
468. State v. Tillery
2001 WL 921754, *6+ , Tenn.Crim.App. , (NO.
E2000-01996-CCA-R3CD )
The Defendant, Timothy Tillery, appeals as of right
from the revocation of his probation. On appeal, he
argues (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to
dismiss the probation...
Aug. 16, 2001 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
469. State v. Ivey
01C01-9808-CR-00347 )
The state appeals as of right from the order of the
Probate Division of the Davidson County Criminal
Court dismissing the charges against the defendant,
Randall Louis Ivey, for...
Aug. 11, 1999 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
470. State v. Crowe
02C01-9112-CC-00274 )
The defendant, Ronnie Crowe, was convicted in
the Henderson County Circuit Court upon his pleas
of guilty to three offenses of selling marijuana for
which he received a total...
Jan. 20, 1993 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 471. State v. White
PD-0193-09 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Appeals. State was not
obligated to address Sixth Amendment speedy
trial guarantee on appeal from dismissal of murder
indictment.
Feb. 10, 2010 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
472. Deeb v. State
69,551 )
Defendant was convicted in the 249th Judicial
District Court, Johnson County, John R. MacLean,
J., of capital murder, and he appealed. The Court
of Criminal Appeals, White, J.,...
Jun. 26, 1991 Case
4
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by
473. Spence v. State
69,341 )
Defendant was convicted of capital murder by the
54th Judicial District Court, McLennan County,
George Allen, J. Defendant appealed. The Court
of Criminal Appeals, 758 S.W.2d...
Jun. 13, 1990 Case
7
8
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 474. Estrada v. State
2009 WL 144327, *10+ , Tex.App.-Dallas , (NO.
05-08-00559-CR , 05-08-00560-CR )
Alejo Trujillo Estrada appeals the trial court's
judgments convicting him of two counts of
aggravated sexual assault of two children younger
than fourteen years of age. The jury...
Jan. 22, 2009 Case
3
8
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
475. State v. White
2008 WL 5264735, *3+ , Tex.App.-Austin , (NO.
03-07-00041-CR )
In June 2003, Jimmie Dale White was indicted
for the murder of Michael Desjardins. White
was alleged to have committed the offense over
seventeen years earlier, in May 1986. White...
Dec. 18, 2008 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 476. State v. McCoy
94 S.W.3d 296, 301+ , Tex.App.-Corpus Christi ,
(NO. 13-01-465-CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Defendant
showed no prejudice from trial delay, and thus
showed no violation of his speedy trial right.
Dec. 05, 2002 Case
3
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 477. State v. Williams
90 S.W.3d 913, 918+ , Tex.App.-Corpus Christi ,
(NO. 13-01-493-CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Seventeen-
and-one-half-month delay in bringing prosecution
for assault upon public servant did not violate right
to speedy trial.
Oct. 24, 2002 Case
3
7
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 478. Grimaldo v. State
2000 WL 798800, *1+ , Tex.App.-Amarillo , (NO.
07-99-0006-CR )
Upon a plea of not guilty, appellant Bonifacio
Grimaldo was convicted by a jury of the offense of
murder and the court assessed punishment at life
imprisonment. By nine points of...
Jun. 21, 2000 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
Discussed by 479. Griffith v. State
976 S.W.2d 686, 695+ , Tex.App.-Tyler , (NO.
12-95-00116-CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. Delay of 26
months did not deny murder defendant right to
speedy trial.
Aug. 29, 1997 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
480. State v. Pregeant
1996 WL 89291, *2+ , Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.) ,
(NO. 01-95-00820-CR )
Appellee, Michael Pregeant, was indicted for
possession of methamphetamine. The trial court
dismissed the indictment because of preindictment
delay in bringing the charges. The...
Feb. 29, 1996 Case
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
481. State v. Bailey
712 P.2d 281, 283+ , Utah , (NO. 19812 )
Defendant was convicted in Third District Court, Salt
Lake County, Ernest F. Baldwin, J., on burglary and
theft charges, as well as habitual criminal charge.
On appeal, the...
Dec. 31, 1985 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
482. State v. Smith
699 P.2d 711, 713+ , Utah , (NO. 19053 )
Defendant was convicted in the Third District Court,
Salt Lake County, David B. Dee, J., of attempted
burglary and robbery, and defendant appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:...
Mar. 13, 1985 Case
3
7
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
483. State v. Byrns
911 P.2d 981, 985+ , Utah App. , (NO. 930345-CA )
Defendant was convicted in the Fourth District
Court, Utah County, Lynn W. Davis, J., on his
plea of no contest, of arranging to distribute
methamphetamine and possession of listed...
Jul. 13, 1995 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
484. Morrisette v. Com.
569 S.E.2d 47, 52+ , Va. , (NO. 020323 , 020324 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sex Offenses. Evidence
of use of force supported conviction for rape and
use of conviction as predicate for capital murder
conviction.
Sep. 13, 2002 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 485. Turner v. Com.
1995 WL 117616, *2+ , Va.App. , (NO. 1980-93-2 )
Appellant, Anthony Turner, was tried by a jury and
convicted of causing bodily injury to a correctional
center employee and possessing, while a prisoner,
an unauthorized object...
Mar. 21, 1995 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by 486. Johnson v. Com.
385 S.E.2d 223, 225+ , Va.App. , (NO. 1190-87-4 )
Defendant was convicted of several counts of rape,
attempted rape, carnal knowledge of child and
aggravated sexual battery involving three victims
before the Circuit Court, City of...
Oct. 17, 1989 Case
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
487. Hall v. Com.
383 S.E.2d 18, 20+ , Va.App. , (NO. 0380-88-3 )
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of the
City of Lynchburg of first-degree murder, and she
appealed. The Court of Appeals denied petition for
appeal, but the Supreme...
Aug. 15, 1989 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
488. Com. v. Perry
2012 WL 9386001, *1+ , Va.Cir.Ct. , (NO.
CR12-794-00-05 )
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Charges based on alleged
due process violations that have resulted from the
Commonwealth's pre-indictment...
Oct. 16, 2012 Case
4
5
S.Ct.
Discussed by
489. Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Perry
2005 WL 6793930, *1+ , Va.Cir.Ct. (Trial Order) ,
(NO. CR12-794-00-05 )
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Charges based on alleged
due process violations that have resulted from the
Commonwealth's pre--indictment...
2005 Case
4
5
S.Ct.
Discussed by
490. State v. Beer
864 A.2d 643, 653+ , Vt. , (NO. 2002-536 ,
2003-456 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Confessions. Defendant
was in custody, as contemplated by Miranda, in
that defendant was removed from vehicle and
transported to police station.
Oct. 01, 2004 Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
491. State v. Delisle
648 A.2d 632, 644+ , Vt. , (NO. 92-039 )
Defendant was convicted by the District Court of
Vermont, Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit, Michael S.
Kupersmith, J., of second-degree murder, and he
Jul. 01, 1994 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
492. State v. Salavea
86 P.3d 125, 127+ , Wash. , (NO. 73642-1 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Jurisdiction. Adult court
age prerequisite was defendant's age at time of
proceedings, not time of offenses.
Mar. 11, 2004 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
493. State v. Norby
858 P.2d 210, 213+ , Wash. , (NO. 59354-0 )
Joinder. Individuals who had not yet been charged
with any criminal offense should not have been
allowed to join in motion to dismiss indictments.
Sep. 09, 1993 Case
3
S.Ct.
Discussed by
494. State v. Dixon
792 P.2d 137, 138+ , Wash. , (NO. 56491-4 )
King County, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., of burglary
and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, 55
Wash.App. 221, 777 P.2d 547, reversed....
Jun. 07, 1990 Case
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
495. State v. Calderon
684 P.2d 1293, 1296+ , Wash. , (NO. 50551-9 )
King County, Peter K. Steere, J., of second-degree
burglary and criminal trespass, and he appealed.
On certification by the Court...
Aug. 09, 1984 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
496. State v. Edwards
616 P.2d 620, 623+ , Wash. , (NO. 46792 )
The Superior Court, King County, Norman W.
Quinn, J., dismissed criminal prosecution that was
brought to trial 197 days after defendant's arrest,
and the State appealed. The...
Aug. 21, 1980 Case
8
S.Ct.
Discussed by
497. State v. Hewson
2013 WL 1790993, *8+ , Wash.App. Div. 3 , (NO.
30212-1-III )
Jack Maurice Hewson Jr. appeals his convictions
for first degree burglary and conspiracy to commit
first degree robbery. He first contends the trial court
violated his...
Apr. 25, 2013 Case
3
6
7
S.Ct.
Discussed by
498. State v. Burton
269 P.3d 337, 343+ , Wash.App. Div. 3 , (NO.
24944-1-III , 29337-8-III )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Trial. Defendant was not
entitled to a new trial due to length of time it took to
obtain the trial transcript.
Jan. 12, 2012 Case
4
6
S.Ct.
Discussed by
499. State v. Frazier
918 P.2d 964, 970+ , Wash.App. Div. 2 , (NO.
18084-7-II )
Burglary charges were properly dismissed due
to state's unjustified preaccusatorial delay, which
deprived accused of juvenile court's...
Jul. 12, 1996 Case
4
6
9
S.Ct.
Discussed by
500. State v. Gidley
901 P.2d 361, 363+ , Wash.App. Div. 1 , (NO.
34529-0-I )
Adult Prosecution. Police's preaccusatorial delay
in referring rape case to prosecutor did not violate
defendant's right to due process, even though delay
caused defendant to be...
Sep. 05, 1995 Case
6
S.Ct.
Table of Authorities (22)
Treatment Referenced Title Depth Quoted Page
Number
Cited
1. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
90 S.Ct. 1598, U.S.N.Y., 1970
Action by a white woman who had been denied
service in defendant's restaurant because she was
in company of Negroes to recover for deprivation of
rights and conspiracy to deprive...
2053
Cited
2. Berenyi v. District Director, Immigration
and Naturalization Service
87 S.Ct. 666, U.S.Mass., 1967
Proceeding on petition for naturalization. The
United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, 239 F.Supp. 725, denied the
petition and petitioner appealed. The...
2053
Cited 3. Comstock v. Group of Institutional Investors
68 S.Ct. 1454, U.S.Mo., 1948
Proceeding in the matter of the reorganization
of the New Orleans, Texas and Mexico Railway
Company, debtor, and other railway companies,
wherein Andrew W. Comstock, a holder of...
2053+
Cited
4. Dickey v. Florida
90 S.Ct. 1564, U.S.Fla., 1970
Gadsden County, Florida of armed robbery, and he
appealed. The District Court of Appeal of Florida,
215 So.2d 772, affirmed, and...
2052
Cited 5. Duignan v. U.S.
47 S.Ct. 566, U.S.N.Y., 1927
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Proceeding by the
United States against James Duignan and the Pall
Mall Realty Corporation for...
2048
Cited
6. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air
Products Co.
69 S.Ct. 535, U.S.Ind., 1949
Action by the Linde Air Products Company against
the Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co., Inc., and
others for infringement of patent. From the portion
of a judgment 86 F.Supp. 191...
2053
Mentioned
7. Ham v. South Carolina
93 S.Ct. 848, U.S.S.C., 1973
Defendant was convicted in the General Sessions
Court of Florence County, South Carolina, of
possession of marihuana, and he appealed. The
South Carolina Supreme Court, 256 S.C....
2049
Number
Mentioned
8. Hebert v. State of La.
47 S.Ct. 103, U.S.La., 1926
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana. Doras Hebert and others were convicted
of manufacturing intoxicating liquor for beverage
purposes, which was affirmed by...
2049
Cited
9. Hoffa v. U.S.
87 S.Ct. 408, U.S.Tenn., 1966
Defendants were convicted of attempting to bribe
members of jury in prosecution for violation of the
Taft-Hartley Act. The United States District Court
entered judgment and the...
2050
Mentioned
10. Hurtado v. People of State of Cal.
4 S.Ct. 111, U.S.Cal., 1884
In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of
California. For dissenting opinion, see 4 S.Ct. 292.
2049
Mentioned
11. Lisenba v. People of State of California
62 S.Ct. 280, U.S.Cal., 1941
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS,
dissenting. On Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the State of California. Major Raymond
Lisenba was convicted of murder, and to...
2049
Cited
12. Moody v. Daggett
97 S.Ct. 274, U.S., 1976
Federal parolee, who was imprisoned for federal
crimes committed while on parole, petitioned for a
writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of a parole
violator warrant on the...
2053+
Cited
13. Mooney v. Holohan
55 S.Ct. 340, U.S.Cal., 1935
Motion for leave to file petition for an original writ
of habeas corpus. Proceeding on the application of
Thomas J. Mooney for leave to file a petition for an
original writ of...
2049
Mentioned
14. Neely v. Martin K. Eby Const. Co.
87 S.Ct. 1072, U.S.Colo., 1967
Wrongful death action. The United States District
Court for the District of Colorado rendered judgment
for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The United
States Court of Appeals...
2048
Cited
15. Rochin v. California
72 S.Ct. 205, U.S.Cal., 1952
Antonio Richard Rochin was convicted in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, W. Turney
Fox, J., of possessing a preparation of morphine in
violation of Health and Safety Code...
2049+
Number
Cited
16. Smith v. U.S.
79 S.Ct. 991, U.S.Ala., 1959
Proceeding on motion by prisoner to vacate or
correct a sentence imposed for violation of the
Federal Kidnapping Act. The United States District
Court for the Middle District of...
2051
Cited
17. U. S. v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.
26 S.Ct. 282, U.S.Ark., 1906
CROSS APPEALS from the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to review a
decree of that court which, on appeal from a decree
of the Circuit Court for the...
2045
Cited
18. U.S. v. Ewell
86 S.Ct. 773, U.S.Ind., 1966
Prosecutions dealing with the illegal sale of
narcotics. The United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, 242 F.Supp. 166 and
242 F.Supp. 451, entered orders...
2048+
Judgment
Reversed
19. U.S. v. Lovasco
532 F.2d 59, 8th Cir.(Mo.), 1976
Defendant was charged with three counts of
unlawful possession of handguns stolen from mail
and one count of engaging in business of dealing in
firearms without a license. The...
2046+
Cited 20. U.S. v. Lovasco
97 S.Ct. 233, U.S.Mo., 1976
Facts and opinion, 532 F.2d 59.
2048
Examined
21. U.S. v. Marion
92 S.Ct. 455, U.S.Dist.Col., 1971
Prosecution of two defendants for alleged fraudulent
business practices. The United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, on defendants' motion,
dismissed indictment...
2045+
Cited
22. U.S. v. Watson
96 S.Ct. 820, U.S.Cal., 1976
District Court for the Central District of California, of
possessing stolen mail, and he appealed. The Court
of Appeals for the...
2050
Negative Treatment
Negative Direct History
The KeyCited document has been negatively impacted in the following ways by events or decisions in the same
litigation or proceedings:
There is no negative direct history.
Negative Citing References (21)
The KeyCited document has been negatively referenced by the following events or decisions in other litigation or
proceedings:
Not Followed
as Dicta
1. U.S. v. Orum
2012 WL 5382843 , M.D.Ala. , (NO. CRIM.A.
2:12CR57-MHT )
Defendant Vonecia Orum has been charged in a 28
count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the United
States and aiding the filing of a false tax return. This
matter is now before...
Nov. 02,
2012
Case
2
3
6
S.Ct.
Declined to
Extend by
2. State v. Gray
917 S.W.2d 668 , Tenn. , (NO. 01-S-01-9411-
CR00138 )
Speedy Trial. Prosecution of defendant for incident that
allegedly occurred 42 years prior to indictment violated
due process.
Feb. 26, 1996 Case
4
S.Ct.
Declined to
Extend by
3. People v. Frazer
88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 , Cal. , (NO. S067443 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sex Offenses. Statute that
revived otherwise time-barred child sex offenses was
not ex post facto law.
Aug. 30,
1999
Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Declined to
Extend by
4. U.S. v. Ray
578 F.3d 184 , 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) , (NO. 08-2795-CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Speedy Trial. A 15-year delay in
the defendant's resentencing violated her right to due
process, but not her right to a speedy trial.
Aug. 27,
2009
Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
5. U.S. v. Ramos Algarin
584 F.2d 562 , 1st Cir.(Puerto Rico) , (NO. 76-1561 )
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Juan R.
Torruella, J., of conspiracy and other offenses relating
to immigration...
Sep. 29,
1978
Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
6. State v. Hester
1979 WL 206822 , Ohio App. 4 Dist. , (NO. 703 )
This is an appeal from the Ross County Court of
Common Pleas. From the record and the stipulation
of facts therein the following appears. Appellant was
incarcerated in the...
May 24, 1979 Case
Distinguished
by
7. Doescher v. Estelle
477 F.Supp. 932 , N.D.Tex. , (NO. CA 3-77-584-F )
Aug. 31,
1979
Case

State prisoner filed petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Following dismissal of petitioner's original habeas
corpus claims for failure to exhaust, petitioner's request
to reopen...
Distinguished
by
8. U.S. v. MacDonald
632 F.2d 258 , 4th Cir.(N.C.) , (NO. 79-5253 )
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
at Raleigh, Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Chief Judge, of the
second-degree...
Jul. 29, 1980 Case
3
4
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
9. Matter of Burt
737 F.2d 1477 , 7th Cir.(Wis.) , (NO. 83-2722 )
Petitioner appealed from judgment entered by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, John W. Reynolds, Chief Judge, denying his
petition for writ of...
Jul. 02, 1984 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
10. People v. Belcher
542 N.E.2d 419 , Ill.App. 2 Dist. , (NO. 2-88-0765 )
Charges were dismissed by the Circuit Court,
Lake County, Alvin I. Singer, J., on the ground that
defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated.
The State appealed. The...
Jul. 19, 1989 Case
2
3
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
11. U.S. v. Music
163 F.3d 600 , 4th Cir.(S.C.) , (NO. 97-4828 )
Nancy Music appeals her sentence imposed after
a plea of guilty to conspiracy to traffic in and use
unauthorized access devices in order to obtain money,
goods, and services in...
Sep. 01,
1998
Case
4
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
12. U.S. v. Dworkin
70 F.Supp.2d 214 , E.D.N.Y. , (NO. 90 CR 574 )
Government sought authorization to revoke defendant's
probation for violation of probation condition after term
of probation expired. The District Court, Nickerson, J.,
held that...
Oct. 13, 1999 Case
Distinguished
by
13. Nelson v. State
39 S.W.3d 791 , Ark. , (NO. CR 99-634 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Postconviction Relief. Eight-
year delay in hearing on postconviction petition did not
violate due process.
Apr. 05, 2001 Case
3
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
14. U.S. v. Martinez-Salazar
318 F.Supp.2d 127 , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 00 CR. 1016
(GEL) )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sentencing. Departure of 11
months was appropriate since there was 21 month
delay in processing of federal case.
Jan. 22, 2004 Case
3
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
2004 WL 1146079 , N.H.Super. , (NO. 2003-S-132 )
Feb. 05, 2004 Case
3
9
10
S.Ct.
The original copy of this order is to be kept in the court
file under seal with copies to counsel only as it contains
references to matters which are confidential pursuant
to...
Distinguished
by
16. Granek v. Texas State Bd. of Medical
Examiners
172 S.W.3d 761 , Tex.App.-Austin , (NO. 03-03-00698-
CV )
HEALTH - Discipline. Board acted arbitrarily and
capriciously by modifying ALJ's proposal for decision to
add its explanation for sanctions.
Aug. 26,
2005
Case
3
8
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
17. U.S. v. Sanders
452 F.3d 572 , 6th Cir.(Ohio) , (NO. 04-4540 )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Sentencing. Resentencing four
years after release from erroneously short sentence did
not violate procedural due process.
Jun. 29, 2006 Case
3
9
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
18. U.S. v. Hamilton
2010 WL 1027412 , D.N.J. , (NO. CRIMA 05-876 JLL )
Dear Counsel: This matter comes before the Court by
way Defendant John Hamilton's motions for a new trial,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
(CM/ECF Nos. 141, 159,...
Mar. 18, 2010 Case
8
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
19. State v. McGuire
786 N.W.2d 227 , Wis. , (NO. 2007AP2711-CR )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Trial. Indecent behavior with
child prosecution commenced 36 years after offense
was not barred by due process.
Jul. 20, 2010 Case
3
9
11
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
20. S.E.C. v. Boyd
2012 WL 1060034 , D.Colo. , (NO. 95-CV-03174-MSK-
MJW )
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to
the Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's
(SEC) Motion to Amend Judgment (# 354) to omit
certain statements in the...
Mar. 29, 2012 Case
4
S.Ct.
Distinguished
by
21. U.S. v. Santiago
2013 WL 6690303 , S.D.N.Y. , (NO. 13 CR 039 CM )
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Indictment and Information. Pre-
indictment delay warranted dismissal of indictment
charging reckless assault for service member's
accidental shooting in Iraq.
Dec. 19,
2013
Case
4
9
S.Ct.

U S V Lovasco

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

U S V Lovasco

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S.

Discussed by 339. Government of Virgin Islands v. Moncayo

Discussed by 410. State v. Klindt

U. S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen