Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Issac Washington and Peter Rinaldi

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided May 24, 1976No. 75--1773Published

1Dissent

■TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

I agree that the government’s power to dismiss an indictment under Rule 48(a) is not absolute. I also agree that a Petite motion may be denied if granting the motion would be “clearly contrary to manifest public interest,” United States v. Cowan, supra, 524 F.2d at 513. With some hesitation, I agree that, although the primary purpose of the “by leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) is to protect the defendant from the government’s bad faith1, a trial judge may use his Rule 48(a) power to prevent other types of manipulation of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. CoxCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
  2. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Watts v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Hayles v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Ackerson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API