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

Ninth Circuit

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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 1979

Docket78-1997

StatusPublished

This text of 589 F.2d 474 (United States v. Mark Parr, Catherine Parr, Ashley Allen, Compass, Inc., and C.C.M., Inc.) 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. 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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 F.2d 474, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mark-parr-catherine-parr-ashley-allen-compass-inc-ca9-1979.