Richard E. Leigh v. United States

329 F.2d 883
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedApril 3, 1964
Docket18025
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 329 F.2d 883 (Richard E. Leigh v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richard E. Leigh v. United States, 329 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was charged with four counts of forgery and four counts of uttering, in an eight-count indictment. He was found guilty and sentenced to a term of from three to nine years imprisonment, the sentences on each count to run concurrently. We reversed. Leigh v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D. C. 390, 308 F.2d 345 (1962).

Appellant was again brought to trial ' and, at the second trial, the Government sought to dismiss two counts of the indictment because one of its witnesses was not available. It appeared, however, that the Assistant United States Attorney, in his opening statement, had referred to “eight counts.” Appellant’s counsel, after consultation with his client, moved that a mistrial be granted because of the possible prejudice resulting from the fact that the jury knew there had been eight counts in the indictment. The motion was granted. Thereafter, appellant was brought to trial on the remaining six counts of the indictment and was convicted.

On this appeal, appellant urges this court to order his release from custody on the ground that he had been placed twice in jeopardy, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Clearly there was here no “harassment” as in situations considered in Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734, 83 S.Ct. 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 (1963). There the jury was discharged over the defendant’s objection.

It has long been held that a defendant cannot plead former jeopardy where the jury before whom he was first on trial was discharged on his own motion or with his consent. Barrett v. Bigger, 57 App.D.C. 81, 17 F.2d 669 (1927). Accordingly, this assignment of error must be denied.

We have examined the other errors assigned by appellant and find them without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Wright
266 A.2d 651 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)
Richard G. Augenblick v. The United States
377 F.2d 586 (Court of Claims, 1967)
Anthony Williams v. United States
345 F.2d 733 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
Joseph E. Piatt v. United States
329 F.2d 883 (D.C. Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 F.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-e-leigh-v-united-states-cadc-1964.