James Wilkett, Thomas H. Conklin, Jr., and Joe F. Hoover, Defendants v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendant could not be retried because the government sought to introduce the same evidence of overt acts in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma
• holding that “[v]enue is wholly neutral; it is a question of procedure, more than -11- Case No. 9-23-25 anything else, and it does not either prove or disprove the guilt of the accused”
• dismissal for want of venue, unlike a failure to prove an essential element of the offense charged, does not raise double jeopardy barrier
• dismissal for want of venue, unlike a failure to prove an essential element of the offense charged, does not raise double jeopardy barrier
• “If two charges of conspiracy are in fact based on a defendant’s participation in a single conspiracy, the former jeopardy clause bars the second prosecution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).