United States v. Thomas W. Bishton

How courts have described this case

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

• construing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(c) and 2517(3) of the federal wiretap statute, which is “virtually identical” to the District of Columbia statute, Khaalis v. United States, 408 A.2d 313, 341 (D.C.1979
• construing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(c) and 2517(3) of the federal wiretap statute, which is “virtually identical” to the District of Columbia statute, Khaalis v. United States, 408 A.2d 313, 341 (D.C.1979) (construing District of Columbia wiretap statute’s standing provision)
• “the time spent on appeals is not generally included for purposes of calculating the period of delay in prosecution”
• Government re-indicting in federal district court after D.C. court indictment was dismissed on procedural technicality did not violate Sixth Amendment because there was no evidence the Government “must have known” it would not prevail in the D.C. courts causing the delay
• device installed on agent’s person

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).