United States v. Joe Chadwick, Unindicted Co-Conspirator And

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Joe Chadwick, Unindicted Co-Conspirator And

556 F.2d 450, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1977

Docket77-1358

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 556 F.2d 450 (United States v. Joe Chadwick, Unindicted Co-Conspirator And) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Joe Chadwick, Unindicted Co-Conspirator And, 556 F.2d 450, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707 (9th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

An indictment charging five named defendants and others with conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 named appellant an unindicted participant in the crime. Appellant moved that his name be expunged from the indictment. The district court denied the motion. We reverse.

Under the circumstances of this case charging appellant with the offense without making him a defendant was beyond the authority of the grand jury and a denial of due process. See United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). The government argues it was necessary to name appellant because a gambling business is illegal under the applicable statute only if it involves five or more persons. Other methods less injurious to appellant were available to satisfy the statutory requirement. Id. at 804-05.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

An indictment charging five named defendants and others with conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 named appellant an unindicted participant in the crime. Appellant moved that his name be expunged from the indictment. The district court denied the motion. We reverse.

Under the circumstances of this case charging appellant with the offense without making him a defendant was beyond the authority of the grand jury and a denial of due process. See United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). The government argues it was necessary to name appellant because a gambling business is illegal under the applicable statute only if it involves five or more persons. Other methods less injurious to appellant were available to satisfy the statutory requirement. Id. at 804-05.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 F.2d 450, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joe-chadwick-unindicted-co-conspirator-and-ca9-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack