United States v. Howard Lee Wilks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that superseding indictment before trial was not prejudicial to defendant since it presented no factual questions that should not have been answered by defendant’s investigation of original indictment
• concluding that the discretion afforded a district court by Rule 48(b
• holding that, in the absence of a showing of “bad faith or intentional withholding or destruction on the part of the government ... the test to be applied ... is whether defendant demonstrates that the evidence is so material that he could not receive a fair trial without it.”
• missing evidence, rendering test for defendant’s fingerprints impossible, could not have proved innocence
• “There is no requirement that a superseding indictment be filed within the time period prescribed under § 3161(b) for the original indictment.”
• § 3161(b) time limitations do not apply to superseding indictments generally

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).