Legal Opinion
Charles E. Sweeney, Jr. v. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 6, 2004No. 02-2165PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
Laypersons sometimes do not realize that the federal government and the state governments are separate sovereigns for purposes of criminal prosecutions, and thus that prosecutors from both may pursue charges for conduct covered by both laws. Lawyers should know better. To his regret, Charles Sweeney made this mistake after his lawyer concluded a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in conjunction with certain charges stemming from the murder of Daniel Guthrie.
The lawyer told Sweeney that this agreement, coupled with an alleged oral promise from the state…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- O'Sullivan v. BoerckelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- James Perruquet v. Kenneth R. BrileyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
- Paul Eichwedel v. Brad CurryCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
- State v. BethelOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Michael Charlton v. Cecil Davis, Superintendent of the Indiana State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Kevin A. Conner v. Daniel McBride SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.