United States v. David Rowland Lee Vaughan

Good Law
715 F.2d 1373·1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16907
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 15, 198382-1718California2,166 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tang, J.

Vaughan appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon his plea of guilty to Count Two of an indictment handed down in 1982. He argues that the district court erred in finding that prosecution under Count Two was not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. He asserts that the conspiracy charged in Count Two of the 1982 indictment was the same conspiracy for which he was charged in an indictment handed down in 1977. We conclude that jeopardy never attached with respect to the 1977 charge and therefore prosecution under the 1982 indictment does not constitute double jeopardy regardless of whether the 1977 and 1982 indictments charged the same conspiracy.

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 1977, the grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against Vaughan and 25 other defendants. Count One of that indictment charged Vaughan with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana -in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ '841(a)(1) and 846 (1976). Eleven overt acts were alleged and the conspiracy was alleged to span from January, 1973 to December, 1976.

Count Two of the 1977 indictment charged a conspiracy, within the same dates, to import marijuana into…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.