United States v. Samuel J. Russotti, Rene Piccarreto, Richard J. Marino, and Thomas E. Marotta

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defendant's \subsidiary\ claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness may not be proper basis for interlocutory appeal except to extent it relates to double jeopardy
• holding that the same offense conduct is only evident when “both the enterprise and the pattern of activity alleged” in the earlier indictment are the same as those alleged in the later indictment
• noting danger of government pursuing successive racketeering prosecutions by limiting predicate acts alleged in support of one pattern while holding in reserve other predicate acts
• laying out a test for whether two RICO counts charge two distinct patterns of racketeering activity.
• finding cooperation between state and federal authorities was not- only permissible, but also “laudatory and desired,” and further finding that such cooperation did not show that the state prosecution was merely a cover for the federal authorities
• no time overlap between predicate acts in two racketeering indictments though time overlap in operation of racketeering enterprises

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).