Eleventh Circuit· 10/25/2000

United States v. Smith

Citations

231 F.3d 800
55 Fed. R. Serv. 1267
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26814
2000 WL 1587653

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a prosecutor may “legitimately place a higher priority on prosecuting someone who commits an offense three, six or seven times, than someone who commits [that] offense once or twice, especially when the offense is a non-violent one”
holding that “[t]he decision as to which crimes and criminals to prosecute is entrusted by the Constitution not to the judiciary, but to the executive who is charged with seeing that laws are enforced.”
explaining that “[t]he decision as to which crimes and criminals to prosecute is entrusted by the Constitution not to the judiciary, but to the executive who is charged with seeing that laws are enforced.”
“[N]othing in [the statute] require[d] that the information be given without . . . permission.”
“[A] multiplicitous indictment may improperly prejudice a jury by suggesting that a defendant has committed several crimes—not one.”
Clear evidence has been interpreted as “‘clear and convincing’ evidence which is the same thing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carnes, Barkett, Marcus

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

50 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.