United States v. Mark Parr, Catherine Parr, Ashley Allen, Compass, Inc., and C.C.M., Inc.

589 F.2d 474, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17657
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 12, 1979·No. 78-1997·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The indictment which the trial court dismissed at best was very poorly drafted. To assure the defendants a fair trial and to immunize any resulting conviction from reversal on appeal would require, to the extent possible, that the trial judge charge the jury with great care and precision. It is far more just and expedient to require the prosecution to obtain a satisfactorily drafted superseding indictment. We think the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment made this possible. We, therefore, affirm the trial court. Our conclusion would not be altered were it to appear that one or more of the defendants for any reason is no longer subject to prosecution.

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Mark Parr, Catherine Parr, Ashley Allen, Compass, Inc., and C.C.M., Inc., 589 F.2d 474, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17657 (9th Cir. 1979).

589 F.2d 474 (United States v. Mark Parr, Catherine Parr, Ashley Allen, Compass, Inc., and C.C.M., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.