United States v. Oscar Armando Larrazolo, Jr., United States of America v. Roberto Larrazolo

Caution
869 F.2d 1354·1989 WL 22281·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3199
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 17, 198987-1378, 87-1380California3,504 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brunetti, J.

Appellants Oscar Armando Larrazo-lo, Jr. and Roberto Larrazolo were indicted along with Jose Luis Ramos-Rodriguez, Oscar A. Larrazolo, Sr., Edward DeVaney and Thomas John O’Connell, for conspiring to distribute and to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(vii), and 846. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss the grand jury indictment and each defendant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal in a timely manner. Interlocutory review of a motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment must be made available for a defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury because such review no longer can be obtained on post conviction appeal, United States v. Benjamin, 812 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm the trial court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court’s determination of whether a prosecutor’s alleged misconduct before a grand jury warrants dismissal of the indictment is subject to de novo review. United States v. DeRosa, 783 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 908 , 106 S.Ct. 3282 , 91 L.Ed.2d 571 (1986); United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 719 F.2d…

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.