United States v. Wilsey, 71-1837
| Citation | 458 F.2d 11 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | 71-1838.,No. 71-1837,71-1837 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ward M. WILSEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Arthur S. Katayama (argued), of Mori & Katayama, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
David P. Curnow, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Atty. & Chief, Crim. Div., Arnold G. Regardie, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MERRILL, BROWNING and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
On March 26, 1970, the Grand Jury for the Southern District of California returned a seven-count indictment against appellant charging him with subscribing to false income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and submitting false statements to a savings and loan association in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. On November 25, 1970, it returned two indictments superseding the prior indictment, embracing in seven counts the same offenses previously charged. A clerical error in date was corrected and certain statutory language was amplified. On January 8, 1971, after commencement of trial the district judge formally dismissed the superseded indictment.
Appellant here contends (as he did below) that the statute of limitations barred government prosecution on several counts of the new indictments. The first indictment was clearly brought within the statutory period. Appellant's position, however, is that the superseding indictments cannot take advantage of that fact save in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3288.1 Specifically he contends that the new indictment cannot be brought within the statute unless the superseded indictment is first dismissed. Only then, he contends under a literal reading of § 3288, does the grace period provided by that section start to run.
But appellant overlooks the fact that that grace period is not needed under the facts here. The filing of an indictment results in a tolling of the statute upon the charges embraced. United States v. Feinberg, 383 F.2d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 1967); Powell v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 352 F.2d 705, 707 (1965). That tolling continues until the indictment is dismissed. Here the superseding indictments were brought while the statute still effectively was tolled and accordingly were timely brought. United States v. Garcia, 412 F.2d 999 (10th Cir. 1969).
Section 3288 applies in those cases where a defendant succeeds in securing dismissal of his indictment for error, defect or irregularity. It serves to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Chagra
...v. Panebianco, 543 F.2d 447, 454 (2d Cir.1976); cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103, 97 S.Ct. 1129, 51 L.Ed.2d 553 (1977); United States v. Wilsey, 458 F.2d 11, 12 (9th Cir.1972). Since no new charges have been added to the indictment, it cannot be said that the superseding indictment has expanded ......
-
U.S. v. Pacheco, 87-1018
...F.2d 1280, 1282 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 777, 778 (9th Cir.) (citing United States v. Wilsey, 458 F.2d 11, 12 (9th Cir.1972)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988, 107 S.Ct. 580, 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986). If a superseding indictment on the same charges is r......
-
U.S. v. Grady
...it does not broaden the charges made in the first indictment, cannot be barred by the statute of limitations. United States v. Wilsey, 458 F.2d 11, 12 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam); United States v. Garcia, 412 F.2d 999, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 1969); see United States v. Strewl, 99 F.2d 474, 477......
-
U.S. v. Madrid
...v. Charnay, 537 F.2d 341, 353-55 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1000, 97 S.Ct. 528, 50 L.Ed.2d 610 (1976); United States v. Wilsey, 458 F.2d 11, 12 (9th Cir.1972) (superseding indictment based on same essential facts does not displace first indictment while statute Under either date, In......