翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Correll
・ United States v. Cors
・ United States v. Cotterman
・ United States v. Councilman
・ United States v. Creek Nation
・ United States v. Crimmins
・ United States v. Cruikshank
・ United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
・ United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
・ United States v. Davila
・ United States v. Davis
・ United States v. Davis (1962)
・ United States v. Davis (2014)
・ United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co.
・ United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.
United States v. Dinitz
・ United States v. Dion
・ United States v. Dominguez Benitez
・ United States v. Dotterweich
・ United States v. Dougherty
・ United States v. Drayton
・ United States v. Drescher
・ United States v. Drew
・ United States v. DuBay
・ United States v. Dunn
・ United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
・ United States v. Eichman
・ United States v. Elcom Ltd.
・ United States v. Emerson
・ United States v. Enmons


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Dinitz : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Dinitz

''United States v. Dinitz'', , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial.
==Facts==
Nathan Dinitz was charged with narcotics offenses in violation of 84 Stat. 1260, 1265, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Five days before trial, Dinitz retained new lawyer, Wagner, for his defense. Wagner had not been admitted to practice in that court, but on the first day of the trial, the court permitted him to appear ''pro hac vice''. The jury was selected and sworn, and opening statements by counsel began. In the defense's opening statements, Wagner gave improper personal opinions regarding the prosecution's key witness and case. The prosecutor objected, and the judge warned Wagner not to do it again. The judge found it necessary to twice more remind Wagner of the purpose of the opening statement and to instruct him to relate, "the facts that you expect the evidence to show, the admissible evidence." ''Id.'' at 603. Wagner, however, continued to present improper arguments. The judge then excluded Wagner from the trial and ordered him to leave the courthouse. The judge asked Meldon, Dinitz's original defense counsel, if he was ready to proceed with trial or whether he would be willing to seek one of three alternative courses - (1) a stay or recess pending application to the Court of Appeals to review the propriety of expelling Wagner, (2) continuation of the trial with prior counsel, or (3) a declaration of a mistrial which would permit the respondent to obtain other counsel. Following the short recess, Meldon moved for a mistrial stating that the Dinitz had reviewed the alternatives and believed that mistrial would be in his best interest. Mistrial was granted without opposition.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Dinitz」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.