United States v. Albert Friedman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although additional underlying details were alleged, the basic facts alleged were not changed, thus the primary purpose of the statute of limitations was met
• holding that the indictment was not materially broadened where, “although additional underlying details have been alleged,” the facts alleged were not changed, but rather five counts were consolidated into one
• holding that grand jury’s return of superseding indictment did not “void” original indictment
• noting that whether the original indictment was formally dismissed or not, it was clear that the prosecution was proceeding with the superseding indictment
• adding “additional underlying details” does not impermissibly broaden the charges in initial indictment
• adopting United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598, 601-02 (2d Cir. 1976)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).