United States v. Guzman Rivera

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant “must produce some evidence tending to prove that ... one sovereign was a pawn of the other, with the result that the notion of two supposedly independent prosecutions is merely a sham”
• emphasizing that the Bartkus exception is limited to situations in which one sovereign “thoroughly dominates or manipulates the prosecutorial machinery of another”
• holding that a defendant “must produce some evidence tending to prove that . . . one sovereign was a pawn of the other, with the result that the notion of two supposedly inde- pendent prosecutions is merely a sham”
• explaining that an independent civil action for the return of property may be brought after a criminal case has been closed
• stating that “the law is pellucid that the dismissal of an indictment is not a suitable remedy for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(j)(1)”
• noting that “under very limited circumstances, successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns might transgress the Double Jeopardy Clause”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).