United States v. Marcello
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
1Opinion of the Court
SEAR, District Judge.
I. Introduction
Defendants in a government prosecution resulting from the Justice Department’s undercover “sting” operation code-named “BRILAB” have brought various pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment against them or, failing that, to suppress certain evidence which they contend was illegally obtained. The defendants first move to dismiss the indictment because of what they characterize as governmental overreaching and jurisdiction artificially created by the government. They also contend in these motions that prejudicial publicity resulting from leaks to the news…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- United States v. DorfmanDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1982
- United States v. Gerald F. Johnson, United States of America v. Thomas Johnson, United States of America v. Edward T. WootenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena of Martin Flanagan. United States of America v. Martin FlanaganCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,752 United States of America v. David Israel NamerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Rickie A. Cochrane, United States v. Joni SeplochaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.