United States v. Markus
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SAROKIN, District Judge.
Defendant seeks to dismiss this action on double jeopardy and collateral estoppel grounds. An earlier indictment against defendant was dismissed by the court on jurisdictional grounds. Had defendant’s motion in the earlier case been made prior to trial, no claim of double *738jeopardy could now arise. However, defendant intentionally awaited the impanelling of a jury before making his motion, for the very purpose of barring any later trial predicated upon a corrected indictment.
Although it is not necessary to develop a ;per se rule for the purpose of deciding this…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Markus, Appeal OfCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- State v. ZawodniakSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
- State v. ZawodniakSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
- United States v. MarkusCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986