SPILLMAN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973)
  …attempting to circumvent a long-accepted intolerance toward judicial inquisition into the process whereby prosecutorial decisions are formulated. United States v. Cox, supra; Spillman v. United States, supra [413 F. 2d 527 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 930, 90 S.Ct. 265, 24 L.Ed.2d 228 (1969)].” 347 F.Supp. at 929. On appeal, the standard of review is whether the district court abused its discretion. Gevinson v. United States, 358 F. 2d 761, 766 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 823, 87 S.Ct. 51, 17…
• United States v. Levine, 546 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …s by Radiant does not constitute film is eristic sophistry. The statutes alleged to have been violated proscribe shipment of such materials whether finally processed or not. See Spillman v. United States, 413 F. 2d 527, 530 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 930, 90 S.Ct. 265, 24 L.Ed.2d 228 (1969); United States v. Peller, 170 F. 2d 1006 (2d Cir. 1948). To understand the evidentiary objections raised by defendants, a brief explication of the film-making process proof introduced in this case is necessary.…
• United States v. Bernardino Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …e United States v. Brown, 482 F. 2d 1359, 1360 (9th Cir. 1973)), nor do we question the prosecutor’s discretion in choosing which charges to bring against a particular defendant (see Spillman v. United States, 413 F. 2d 527 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 930, 90 S.Ct. 265, 24 L.Ed.2d 228 (1969)). But when, as here, there is a significant possibility that such discretion may have been exercised with a vindictive motive or purpose, the reason for the increase in the gravity of the charges must be made to…