Search | Punch and Jurists

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. Fletcher, No. 94-5767 (4th Cir.) (74 F.3d 49) (January 29, 1996) (Judge Francis D. Jr. Murnaghan)

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

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Amendment/Variance

U.S. v. Fletcher, No. 94-5767 (4th Cir.) (74 F.3d 49) (January 29, 1996) (Judge Francis D. Jr. Murnaghan) by Case rejevyed claims that there was any unconstitutional amendment of the indictment of bill of particulars or fatal variance between the charges and the proof at trial, explaing when such matters …

U.S. v. Kimbrough, No. 94-10088 (5th Cir.) (69 F.3d 723) (November 9, 1995) (Judge Edward C. Prado)

Article • December 1, 1995

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Duplicity/Multiplicity

U.S. v. Kimbrough, No. 94-10088 (5th Cir.) (69 F.3d 723) (November 9, 1995) (Judge Edward C. Prado) by This is a rare example of a court holding that two counts were multiplicitous - i.e., the indictment charged a single offense in several counts. Here, the Court held that an indictment …

U.S. v. Girardi, No. 94-3179 (7th Cir.) (62 F.3d 943) (August 9, 1995) (Judge Daniel A. Manion)

Article • September 1, 1995

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Accessories and Accomplices

U.S. v. Girardi, No. 94-3179 (7th Cir.) (62 F.3d 943) (August 9, 1995) (Judge Daniel A. Manion) by Case held that in sentencing a defendant as an accessory in a drug case, the defendant need not know or reasonably know the quantity of the drugs involved. The facts of this …

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. Floresca, No. 92-5447 (4th Cir.) (38 F.3d 706) (October 27, 1994) (Judge Kenneth K. Hall)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Constructive Amendment/Variances

U.S. v. Floresca, No. 92-5447 (4th Cir.) (38 F.3d 706) (October 27, 1994) (Judge Kenneth K. Hall) by Holding it would be "intolerably unfair" to deprive a defendant of the grand jury's protection, the Court ruled that Stirone v. U.S., 361 U.S. 212 (1960) demands reversal of a conviction when …

U.S. v. Willoughby, No. 92-3611 (7th Cir.) (27 F.3d 263) (June 17, 1994) (Judge Joel L. Flaum)

Article • January 1, 1994

Filed under: Punch And Jurists, Amendment/Variance

U.S. v. Willoughby, No. 92-3611 (7th Cir.) (27 F.3d 263) (June 17, 1994) (Judge Joel L. Flaum) by Here the Court held that an indictment that charged a violation of 18 USC § 924(c) by identifying a specific drug trafficking offense rendered that specified offense an essential element of the …

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 …