United States v. Julius Zimmelman, 634 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Julius Zimmelman, 634 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Chau v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission (nysd, 2014-12-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Chau v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission
S.D.N.Y. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Zimmelman, 634 F.2d 1237 , 1237 n. 1 (9th Cir.1980) ("We have no jurisdiction to consider the denial of discovery until after a final judgment.”); United States v. Sorren, 605 F.2d 1211, 1215 (1st Cir.1979) ("Denials of requests for discovery may generally be appealed only after final judgment.”) (citing Browning Debenture Holders’ Comm. v. DASA Corp., 524 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir.1975)). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Julius ZIMMELMAN, Appellant
80-1332.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 30, 1980.
634 F.2d 1237
Nancy Wieben Stock, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee., Howard L. Weitzman, Weitzman & Fidler, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Goodwin, Per Curiam, Poole, Price.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Julius Zimmelman appeals pursuant to Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 659, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), from the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on grounds of double jeopardy. [1] We affirm.

After a jury trial resulted in Zimmelman’s conviction, the district court granted Zimmelman’s motion for a mistrial based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the cross-examination of a witness. In doing so, the court ordered a new trial and denied Zimmelman’s request to dismiss the indictment.

The Double Jeopardy Clause bars re-prosecution of a case after the grant of[*1238] a mistrial only where the mistrial was “attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching . . . . ” United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485, 91 S.Ct. 547, 557, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971). In this circuit, this has been interpreted to mean where the improper action of the prosecutor was intentional and done in bad faith. United States v. Gamble, 607 F.2d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1092, 100 S.Ct. 1059, 62 L.Ed.2d 781 (1980).

The government’s cross-examination of David Heath at Zimmelman’s trial arguably exceeded the spirit of an earlier court order in limine. The transgression was not, however, intentional and in bad faith. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

1

. Zimmelman also contends that the government improperly withheld discoverable infor[*1238] mation. His notice of appeal does not, as it could not, appeal from the district court’s denial of his discovery request. We have no jurisdiction to consider the denial of discovery until after a final judgment. One of the criteria for permitting Abney appeals is that the rights involve “the very authority of the Government to hale .. . [the defendant] into court to face trial . . .. ” Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. at 659, 97 S.Ct. at 2040. A motion to compel discovery is not such a right. It differs qualitatively from the double jeopardy rights protected by Abney.