U.S. v. Borokinni, 83-5279
| Decision Date | 16 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-5279,83-5279 |
| Citation | 748 F.2d 236 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ibrahim Dende BOROKINNI, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert W. Mance, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Janet K. DeCosta, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C. (Elsie L. Munsell, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before RUSSELL, HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ibrahim Dende Borokinni appeals from his conviction by a jury of importation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 952(a) and of possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). We affirm.
Borokinni was indicted and first tried for importation of heroin and possession of heroin with intent to distribute on August 1, 1983. He asserts that prior to and during that trial, he specifically requested, but was not furnished, certain allegedly exculpatory materials. The trial resulted in a hung jury, and a mistrial was declared.
A second trial was scheduled for September 20, 1983. Meanwhile, Borokinni obtained copies of the allegedly exculpatory materials and offered some of the materials into evidence at his second trial. Notwithstanding this evidence, the jury convicted Borokinni on both counts. He appeals.
On appeal, Borokinni contends that as a result of the government's failure to produce the allegedly exculpatory materials during the first trial, he is entitled to have the indictment dismissed. We reject Borokinni's contention as patently spurious. We hold that, assuming Borokinni was entitled to the materials at his first trial, * his remedy for the government's failure to furnish them was a new trial, not an acquittal.
Generally, the double jeopardy clause does not prevent the government from forcing a criminal defendant to submit to a second trial where the first trial ended in a mistrial. United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 130, 101 S.Ct. 426, 433, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). Nor does the clause prohibit retrial after a conviction has been reversed on any ground other than insufficiency of the evidence. Id. at 131, 101 S.Ct. at 434. If Borokinni's first trial had resulted in a conviction which was reversed on the ground that the government withheld materials that it was required to furnish, Borokinni could have been retried. California v. Trombetta, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2533, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). It makes no difference that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Derrick
...existed as a consequence of discovery violations is fully remedied by this court's orders of new trials. See United States v. Borokinni, 748 F.2d 236, 237 (4th Cir.1984) (rejecting defendant's claim that his indictment should have been dismissed because the government failed to produce excu......
-
United States v. Burns
...as a consequence of discovery violations is fully remedied by this court's orders of new trials.") (citing United States v. Borokinni, 748 F.2d 236, 237 (4th Cir. 1984)). Therefore, I will not dismiss the indictment but will grant Burns a new trial. Dyess, 478 F.3d at 234. V. Counsel's Lack......
-
Lawton v. Ludwick, CASE NO. 2:10-cv-10048
...trial. Any error that occurred at his first trial is moot because the error was cured at his second trial. See United States v. Borokinni, 748 F.2d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 1984) (stating that the defendant's second trial cured any errors in the government's nondisclosure of materials at the firs......
-
U.S. v. Wentz, 85-5243
...a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause generally does not forbid the government from reprosecuting the defendant. United States v. Borokinni, 748 F.2d 236, 237 (4th Cir.1984). The governing rule depends on whether the defendant moved for the mistrial or whether it was granted over his objec......