United States v. Sherman Shelby Shaw and George M. Snellings, III

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Sherman Shelby Shaw and George M. Snellings, III

615 F.2d 251, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18835

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1980

Docket79-2022, 79-2901

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 615 F.2d 251 (United States v. Sherman Shelby Shaw and George M. Snellings, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Sherman Shelby Shaw and George M. Snellings, III, 615 F.2d 251, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18835 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before us on appeals from two separate orders of the dis *252 trict court for the Western District of Louisiana, the Monroe Division. The appeals, which have been consolidated for hearing before this Court, involve two pending criminal cases arising out of the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal migratory bird laws, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. In the appeal numbered 79-2022, we affirm the district court’s order on the basis of its opinion, see United States v. Shaw, 467 F.Supp. 86 (W.D.La.1979). As to appeal No. 79-2901, we reverse. Although we agree that the prosecution’s actions do not constitute a violation of the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, we hold that the filing of the second information occurred under circumstances which indicate that the filing constitutes vindictive prosecution for the particular acts of the defendants described in No. 79-2022. A criminal defendant is entitled to pursue statutory or procedural rights without the fear of vindictive retaliation. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2102, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974).

The judgment in 79-2022 is AFFIRMED. The judgment in 79-2901 is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court with directions that the prosecution be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before us on appeals from two separate orders of the dis *252 trict court for the Western District of Louisiana, the Monroe Division. The appeals, which have been consolidated for hearing before this Court, involve two pending criminal cases arising out of the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal migratory bird laws, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. In the appeal numbered 79-2022, we affirm the district court’s order on the basis of its opinion, see United States v. Shaw, 467 F.Supp. 86 (W.D.La.1979). As to appeal No. 79-2901, we reverse. Although we agree that the prosecution’s actions do not constitute a violation of the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, we hold that the filing of the second information occurred under circumstances which indicate that the filing constitutes vindictive prosecution for the particular acts of the defendants described in No. 79-2022. A criminal defendant is entitled to pursue statutory or procedural rights without the fear of vindictive retaliation. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2102, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974).

The judgment in 79-2022 is AFFIRMED. The judgment in 79-2901 is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court with directions that the prosecution be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F.2d 251, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sherman-shelby-shaw-and-george-m-snellings-iii-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack