Legal Opinion

United States v. Robert I. Bendis, Andrew D'amato, Armand Mucci

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 1, 1982No. 80-1301, 80-1302 and 80-1310PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

These are interlocutory appeals from the orders of the district court denying appellants’ motions to dismiss an indictment returned against them in the District of Hawaii. Appellants contend that the Hawaii indictment is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is the product of vindictive prosecution and should be dismissed due to delay and allegedly improper introduction of evidence before the grand jury. We have jurisdiction only as to the double jeopardy and vindictive prosecution claims. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Iannelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. United States v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  2. United States v. Charles S. RaginsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  3. United States of America, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Terry Louis GannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  4. United States v. Lester Dortch, A/K/A "Lightning," Wilhelm Suess, A/K/A "Wild Bill," and Floyd DortchCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  5. United States v. LorenzoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

46 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