Search | Punch and Jurists

U.S. v. Mulderig, No. 95-30206 (5th Cir.) (120 F.3d 534) (August 15, 1997) (Judge Carl E. Stewart)

Article • September 1, 1997 • from P&J September, 1997

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Mulderig, No. 95-30206 (5th Cir.) (120 F.3d 534) (August 15, 1997) (Judge Carl E. Stewart) by Court held that no hearing was required to determine whether defendant had suffered actual and substantial prejudice from the Government's nine-year pre-indictment delay.

U.S. v. Johnson, No. 96-3337 (10th Cir.) (120 F.3d 1107) (August 6, 1997) (Judge Stephanie K. Seymour)

Article • September 1, 1997 • from P&J September, 1997

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Johnson, No. 96-3337 (10th Cir.) (120 F.3d 1107) (August 6, 1997) (Judge Stephanie K. Seymour) by Here, the Court rejected a claim that a two-year delay in the defendant's indictment violated her due process rights. The Court held that: "Preindictment delay is not a violation of the Due …

U.S. v. Rogers, No. 95-5351 (6th Cir.) (118 F.3d 466) (July 2, 1997) (Judge Karen Nelson Moore)

Article • August 1, 1997 • from P&J August, 1997

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Rogers, No. 95-5351 (6th Cir.) (118 F.3d 466) (July 2, 1997) (Judge Karen Nelson Moore) by "To prove unconstitutional pre-indictment delay, the defendant must first prove "substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial." United States v. Brown, 959 F.2d 63, 66 (6th Cir. 1992). The government …

U.S. v. Ross, No. 95-50282 (9th Cir.) (112 F.3d 422) (April 29, 1997) (Judge Robert Boochever)

Article • June 1, 1997 • from P&J June, 1997

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Ross, No. 95-50282 (9th Cir.) (112 F.3d 422) (April 29, 1997) (Judge Robert Boochever) by Case held that eight year delay in indicting defendant, and subsequent 4 1/2 year delay between mistrial and second prosecution did not violate due process.

U.S. v. Ousley, No. 96-1548 (7th Cir.) (100 F.3d 75) (November 13, 1996) (Judge Richard D. Cudahy)

Article • December 1, 1996 • from P&J December, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Ousley, No. 96-1548 (7th Cir.) (100 F.3d 75) (November 13, 1996) (Judge Richard D. Cudahy) by Court held that defendant must show actual prejudice before reversal for speedy trial errors based on continuances granted "in the interest of justice.".

U.S. v. Foxman, No. 94-5183 (11th Cir.) (87 F.3d 1220) (July 11, 1996) (Judge James Larry Edmondson)

Article • August 1, 1996 • from P&J August, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Foxman, No. 94-5183 (11th Cir.) (87 F.3d 1220) (July 11, 1996) (Judge James Larry Edmondson) by The defendant in this case had served as the Chairman of a Savings and Loan Association until he left in 1983. In 1993 he was indicted for conspiracy to divert some funds …

U.S. v. Foxman, No. 94-5183 (11th Cir.) (87 F.3d 1220) (July 11, 1996) (Judge James Larry Edmondson)

Article • August 1, 1996 • from P&J August, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Foxman, No. 94-5183 (11th Cir.) (87 F.3d 1220) (July 11, 1996) (Judge James Larry Edmondson) by Here the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in finding that the defendant was prejudiced by a ten year delay between the period that he ceased …

U.S. v. Crouch, No. 93-7719 (5th Cir.) (84 F.3d 1497) (May 30, 1996) (Judge Will L. Garwood)

Article • July 1, 1996 • from P&J July, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Crouch, No. 93-7719 (5th Cir.) (84 F.3d 1497) (May 30, 1996) (Judge Will L. Garwood) by Here the majority held that where am indictment is not barred by the statute of limitations, dismissal for pre-indictmemt delay requires both actual prejudice and a finding that the Government sought a …

U.S. v. Martinez, No. 94-50620 (9th Cir.) (77 F.3d 332) (February 27, 1996) (Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld)

Article • April 1, 1996 • from P&J April, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Martinez, No. 94-50620 (9th Cir.) (77 F.3d 332) (February 27, 1996) (Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld) by Prior to this appeal, the district court (Judge Marshall) dismissed an indictment for excessive pre-indictment delay because she concluded that the defendant had made an actual showing or prejudice since the delay …

U.S. v. Martinez, No. 94-50620 (9th Cir.) (77 F.3d 332) (February 27, 1996) (Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld)

Article • April 1, 1996 • from P&J April, 1996

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Martinez, No. 94-50620 (9th Cir.) (77 F.3d 332) (February 27, 1996) (Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld) by Prior to this appeal, the district court (Judge Marshall) dismissed an indictment for excessive pre-indictment delay because she concluded that the defendant had made an actual showing or prejudice since the delay …

U.S. v. Thomas, No. 93-6673 (11th Cir.) (62 F.3d 1332) (September 5, 1995) (Judge Edward E. Carnes)

Article • September 1, 1995

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Thomas, No. 93-6673 (11th Cir.) (62 F.3d 1332) (September 5, 1995) (Judge Edward E. Carnes) by Case held that defendant failed to show that 55 month pre-indictment delay had been deliberate attempt to gain a tactical advantage, and therefore it was uncessessary to decide whether defendant had suffered …

U.S. v. Crouch, No. 93-7719 (5th Cir.) (51 F.3d 480) (April 20, 1995) (Judge Henry A. Politz)

Article • May 1, 1995

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Crouch, No. 93-7719 (5th Cir.) (51 F.3d 480) (April 20, 1995) (Judge Henry A. Politz) by Case held that indictment brought eight years after allegedly illegal banking transaction resulted in actual prejudice, necessitating dismissal despite any lack of bad faith by the Government.

U.S. v. Sowa, No. 93-3833 (7th Cir.) (34 F.3d 447) (August 30, 1994) (Judge William J. Bauer)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Pre-Indictment Delay

U.S. v. Sowa, No. 93-3833 (7th Cir.) (34 F.3d 447) (August 30, 1994) (Judge William J. Bauer) by Here the Court explained that "once the defendant has proven actual and substantial prejudice, the government must come forward and provide its reasons for the delay. The reasons are then balanced against …