District of Columbia· 8/14/1979
United States v. Fields
Citations
- 475 F. Supp. 903
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “although general ly a dismissal by the government does not bar reinstitution of a prosecution, an exception is made where there has been a harassment of a defendant”
- holding, in the alternative, that dismissal of second indictment against defendant was appropriate under the theory that “the government is not free to indict, dismiss, and reindict solely to achieve a more favorable prosecutorial posture”
- dismissing first indictment with prejudice after second indictment revealed “inappropriate conduct” by Government, functionally “vitiating the second indictment”
- dismissing second indictment with prejudice where initial indictment was sought only to secure defendant's cooperation as a witness
- “[T]he government is not free to indict, dismiss, and reindict solely to achieve a more favorable prosecutorial posture.”
- “[T]he government is not free to indict, dismiss, and reindict solely to achieve a more favorable prosecutorial posture.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harold H. Greene
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. Jacque Kristina DerrTenth Circuit· 1984-01-23· cited 49×
- United States v. CookUnited States Court of Military Appeals· 1982-03-22· cited 23×
- United States v. PoindexterDistrict of Columbia· 1989-07-25· cited 21×
- State v. EderNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1985-07-18· cited 20×
- Flakes v. PercyW.D. Wisconsin· 1981-04-10· cited 14×
- United States v. RosenbergS.D. New York· 2000-05-10· cited 5×
- United States v. BorgesDistrict of Columbia· 2015-12-31· cited 5×
- United States v. SuazoFirst Circuit· 2021-09-20· cited 3×
- Matthew A. Carabajal v. The State of WyomingWyoming Supreme Court· 2020-08-10· cited 2×
- State v. Mohave County Justice CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-08-23· cited 1×
- United States v. SlattenDistrict of Columbia· 2010-01-19
- United States v. PittsDistrict of Columbia· 2019-05-14
- United States v. SimmonsDistrict of Columbia· 2022-05-02
- United States v. EvansDistrict of Columbia· 2022-11-08
- United States v. MadzaracDistrict of Columbia· 2023-05-15
- United States v. BeidlemanDistrict of Columbia· 2025-10-01
- United States v. NguyenDistrict of Columbia· 2025-11-04
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 7,763×
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1970-05-04· cited 7,191×
- Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1935-04-15· cited 4,581×
- Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court· 1978-03-06· cited 2,683×
- Blackledge v. PerrySupreme Court· 1974-05-20· cited 1,945×
- Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1967-03-13· cited 1,817×
- Service v. DullesSupreme Court· 1957-06-17· cited 860×
- United States v. Virgil D. Dardi, Robert B. Gravis, Charles Rosenthal and Charles BermanSecond Circuit· 1964-03-17· cited 196×
- United States v. Robert Louis Ammidown, United States of America v. Robert L. AmmidownD.C. Circuit· 1974-05-10· cited 193×
- United States v. Joseph D. Beasley, M.D., United States of America v. Oscar E. Kramer, Jr.Fifth Circuit· 1977-05-10· cited 65×
- United States v. SweigS.D. New York· 1970-06-15· cited 59×
- Robert A. Woodring v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1963-02-01· cited 57×
- United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Con. Ass'nS.D. New York· 1964-04-13· cited 55×
- United States v. Kleen Laundry & Cleaners, Inc.E.D. New York· 1974-08-09· cited 43×
- In the Matter of the Grand Jury Subpoena Served on John DoeSecond Circuit· 1976-12-09· cited 19×
- United States v. BrannonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1979-08-09· cited 9×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.