United States v. Turner & Kelly case brief summary
130 F.3d 815 (1997)
CASE FACTS
Defendants were charged with stealing money from a federal agency and making materially false statements to a federal agency, relating to their allegedly falsified time cards. The district court declared a mistrial. The government returned a superseding indictment against defendants, on the same factual basis, but with different individual allegations. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on grounds of double jeopardy and res judicata, which was denied.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment, except for one count which was the same in both the original and in the superseding indictment, holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution of defendants because each offense contained elements not present in the other, and that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar prosecution because there had been no verdict or final judgment.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
130 F.3d 815 (1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed the judgment of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
which denied their motions to dismiss a superseding indictment on
charges of stealing money from a federal agency and making materially
false statements to a federal agency, contending that the indictment
should have been dismissed on grounds of double jeopardy and res
judicata.CASE FACTS
Defendants were charged with stealing money from a federal agency and making materially false statements to a federal agency, relating to their allegedly falsified time cards. The district court declared a mistrial. The government returned a superseding indictment against defendants, on the same factual basis, but with different individual allegations. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on grounds of double jeopardy and res judicata, which was denied.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, with one exception, holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution of defendants because each offense, under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 641, 1001(a), contained elements not present in the other.
- The court held that aiding and abetting charges were not barred by double jeopardy because that charge did not appear in the original indictment.
- The court did reverse on one count against one defendant which was the same in both the initial and superseding indictments.
- The court further held that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar prosecution because there had been no verdict or final judgment.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment, except for one count which was the same in both the original and in the superseding indictment, holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution of defendants because each offense contained elements not present in the other, and that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar prosecution because there had been no verdict or final judgment.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment