United States v. Green
| Decision Date | 27 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22787.,22787. |
| Citation | 134 US App. DC 278,414 F.2d 1174 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. Honorable June L. GREEN, United States District Court Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Charles R. Work, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty. at the time the petition was filed, and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the petition was filed, were on the petition, for the United States.
Mr. Allan M. Palmer, Washington, D. C., argued in opposition to the petition.
Before BURGER, WRIGHT and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us on the Government's application for a writ of mandamus or prohibition preventing respondent from dismissing the indictment in a criminal case pending before her. Respondent has indicated that dismissal would be required under Roviaro v. United States,1 unless a Government informant was produced for questioning by the judge in camera as to the relevance of his information to the defense. When the application for mandamus was first filed, this court sought more time to examine the question of its jurisdiction and thus directed respondent to allow the trial to take its normal course, including submission to the jury. This order, however, was "without prejudice to such action following verdict or judgment as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances at that time * * *." The case was submitted to the jury and a guilty verdict was returned. The defense again moved for dismissal of the indictment, and when respondent indicated a disposition to grant the motion, the Government again sought a writ of mandamus. That application is still properly before us for decision despite intervening events, to which we turn now.
When the defense moved for dismissal of the indictment, respondent orally granted the motion, but when the Government objected that it had not been given an opportunity to argue the question, the ruling was immediately withdrawn. We hold that under these circumstances the oral ruling has no legal significance and is not a judgment of acquittal barring further prosecution. The oral ruling of a trial judge is not immutable, and is of course subject to further reflection, reconsideration and change.
After hearing argument on the motion to dismiss the indictment, the trial judge sua sponte ordered that a new trial be held on the condition that the informant be produced....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Harmon
...of orders in criminal proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 ... expressly limits the court's authority in sentencing."); United States v. Green , 414 F.2d 1174, 1175 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (holding that district judge was authorized to withdraw oral ruling granting defendant's motion to dismiss indictmen......
-
Myers v. Frazier
...authority of a trial court to reconsider and rescind previously announced oral or interlocutory orders. See, e.g., United States v. Green, 414 F.2d 1174, 1175 (D.C.Cir.1969); United States v. LoRusso, 695 F.2d 45, 52 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1070, 103 S.Ct. 1525, 75 L.Ed.2d 948......
-
United States v. Schall
...`if required in the interest of justice'. The Court may grant a new trial only upon motion of a defendant. United States v. Green, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 278, 414 F.2d 1174, 1175 (1969); United States v. Vanterpool, 377 F.2d 32, 34-36 (2d Cir. 1967). The motion itself is addressed to the Court's ......
-
U.S. v. Sunia
...judge is not immutable, and is of course subject to further reflection, reconsideration[,] and change." United States v. Green, 414 F.2d 1174, 1175 (D.C.Cir.1969) (per curiam). Here, it is apparent that the Court erred in denying earlier the defendants' motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six......