Legal Opinion

United States v. Kanchanalak

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided February 9, 1999No. Crim. 98-0241 (PLF)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on defendants’ Motion No. 5, to dismiss those portions of Count 18 of the Superseding Indictment relating to allegations of conspiracy to obstruct a congressional investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1505. Upon consideration of the defendants’ motion, the government’s opposition, the defendants’ reply and the arguments of counsel presented in open court, the Court concludes that the defendants’ motion must be granted and that certain portions of Count 18 therefore must be stricken.

Count 18 of the Superseding…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Yates v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Braverman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  5. United States v. TarantinoCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re Vitamins Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
  2. United States v. WrightDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
  3. United States v. SafavianDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
  4. United States v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
  5. United States v. ParrisDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000

3 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