UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MURPHY ALBERT LEWIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The government's appeal from the dismissal of an indictment must be dismissed because further prosecution would constitute double jeopardy.
The defendant was indicted for failing to report for induction into the Armed Forces. The district court dismissed the indictment because the inductio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Report For Induction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Murphy Albert Lewis was indicted for failing to report for and submit to induction in the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462(a). After an evidentiary hearing held on May 29, 1973, the district court granted a motion to dismiss the indictment because the local board had postponed Mr. Lewis’ initial order to report for induction beyond the 120 day maximum permitted by 32 CRF § 1632.2(a). The Government now attempts to pursue an appeal from that district court'judgment.
Although the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 37311 permit a Government appeal from an order dismissing an indictment, no appeal shall lie if the accused would be placed in double jeopardy. The present law of double jeopardy precludes retrial when the district court has ruled in favor of the defendant on facts going to the merits of the case if these facts were adduced at an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Velazquez, 490 F. 2d 29 (2d Cir. 1973); see United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 92 S.Ct. 2531, 33 L.Ed.2d 207 (1972); United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 90 S.Ct. 2117, 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970); United States v. Findley, 439 F. 2d 970 (1st Cir. 1971); United States v. Ponto, 454 F. 2d 657 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. McCreery, 473 F. 2d 1381 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Weller, 466 F. 2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Rothfelder, 474 F. 2d 606 (6th Cir. 1973). See also United States v. Jenkins, 490 F. 2d 868 (2d Cir. 1973).
The thrust of the protection against double jeopardy is to limit to one the number of times that a defendant may be required to submit his proof to challenge by his adversary. United States v. Velazquez, supra.
Accordingly this appeal by the Government must be dismissed because further prosecution of Lewis would constitute double jeopardy.
Dismissed.
. In pertinent part 18 U.S.C. § 3731 provides : In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopary clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Mann, 517 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Giddens, 494 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Murphy Albert Lewis, 519 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1970)
- United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Ponto, 454 F.2d 657 (7th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Findley, 439 F.2d 970 (1st Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Jenkins, 490 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Velazquez, 490 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1973)
- United States v. McCREERY, 473 F.2d 1381 (7th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Rothfelder, 474 F.2d 606 (6th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Weller, 466 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1972)