United States v. Grace
District Court, D. Montana
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MOLLOY, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction 1
The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the knowing endangerment object of Count I of the Superseding Indictment. The Defendants contend that the Superseding Indictment does not cure the defect found in the original Indictment. Based on this premise the argument is put forth that the Superseding Indictment is therefore invalid under the Court’s analysis in its June 8, 2006 Order. That Order dismissed the knowing endangerment object of the Count I conspiracy in the original Indictment. Defendants also argue that re-prosecution of the knowing…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Yates v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Dretke v. HaleySupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,560 United States of America v. David B. CharnayCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- United States v. Apex Distributing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SorcherDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007