Legal Opinion

United States v. Bianchini

District Court, D. Vermont

Decided March 18, 1991No. Cr. No. 90-18-01PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

7. Introduction

Before the court are defendant’s motions (1) for a new trial; (2) for disclosure, to interview jurors, and for a hearing on extraneous influences on the jury verdict; and (3) for judgment of acquittal. The government has opposed all of the motions. For the reasons herein stated, defendant’s motions are DENIED.

II. Background

A. The Jury Tampering Incident

Defendant David Bianchini was convicted of violating various federal drug laws after a jury trial lasting from November 13-26, 1990. During the trial, certain unusual and troubling events…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Remmer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. Rushen v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. United States v. Charles FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
  4. Remmer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  5. Powell v. Committee on Admissions & Grievances of the United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. Allan Blume, Toby Pett, Roger Ward, David BianchiniCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
  2. United States v. Allan Blume, Toby Pett, Roger Ward, David BianchiniCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API