UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JULIUS ZIMMELMAN, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds was not an abuse of discretion.
After a jury trial conviction, the district court granted the defendant's motion for a mistrial due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The defendant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Julius Zimmelman appeals pursuant to Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 659, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), from the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on grounds of double jeopardy.1 We affirm.
After a jury trial resulted in Zimmelman’s conviction, the district court granted Zimmelman’s motion for a mistrial based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the cross-examination of a witness. In doing so, the court ordered a new trial and denied Zimmelman’s request to dismiss the indictment.
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars re-prosecution of a case after the grant of a mistrial only where the mistrial was “attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching . . . . ” United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485, 91 S.Ct. 547, 557, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971). In this circuit, this has been interpreted to mean where the improper action of the prosecutor was intentional and done in bad faith. United States v. Gamble, 607 F. 2d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1092, 100 S.Ct. 1059, 62 L.Ed.2d 781 (1980).
The government’s cross-examination of David Heath at Zimmelman’s trial arguably exceeded the spirit of an earlier court order in limine. The transgression was not, however, intentional and in bad faith. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
. Zimmelman also contends that the government improperly withheld discoverable infor mation. His notice of appeal does not, as it could not, appeal from the district court’s denial of his discovery request. We have no jurisdiction to consider the denial of discovery until after a final judgment. One of the criteria for permitting Abney appeals is that the rights involve “the very authority of the Government to hale .. . [the defendant] into court to face trial . . .. ” Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. at 659, 97 S.Ct. at 2040. A motion to compel discovery is not such a right. It differs qualitatively from the double jeopardy rights protected by Abney.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1971)
- Rivera v. United States, 444 U.S. 1092 (U.S. 1980)
- LaJune v. United States, 444 U.S. 1092 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Gamble, 607 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1979)