In a tax evasion prosecution, a denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment is affirmed where: 1) a prior reversal for constructive amendment of the indictment did not itself engender double jeopardy concerns and neither the district court nor the court of appeals made factual findings tantamount to acquittal; and 2) since the Double Jeopardy Clause was not a bar to retrying defendant on the exact same offense, it did not matter whether she was instead charged with a different offense that required proof of the same elements.
Read US v. Farr, No. 09-6024
Appellate Information
Filed January 11, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge Siler
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
