Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. George Michael Shipsey (2004)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“5 The statute of limitations must be read in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3288 , which provides a six-month grace period in situations where an indictment is dismissed after the statute of limitations expires.”
United States v. WR Grace (2007)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“The district court rejected the first two arguments, but agreed with defendants that the new indictment was time-barred.”
United States v. James Mathurin (2017)
ca11 · cites it 4×
“However, under 18 U.S.C. § 3288 : Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six…”
United States v. McMillan (2010)
ca5 · cites it 2×
“6 However, a new indictment filed after an original indictment has been dismissed and the limitations period has passed is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3288 . That statute permits the Government to refile the indictment within six months after the original indictment is found to be…”
State v. Outen (2014)
ga · cites it 5×
“First, the State asks us to read OCGA § 17-3-3 in light of the analogous federal statute, 18 USC § 3288 , which says, with emphasis added: Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of…”
United States v. Barry Noel Horowitz (1985)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“We must decide whether an indictment may be refiled within six months after the expiration of the statute of limitations un *1402 der 18 U.S.C. § 3288 (1982) where the earlier accusatory pleading was dismissed for a nonintentional failure to present exculpatory evidence to the…”
United States v. Rushin (2011)
ca10 · cites it 2×
“18 U.S.C. § 3288 . II. On August 27, 2004, Defendant made his initial appearance on a two-count indictment relating to one of the six robberies with which he and his cohort were ultimately charged.”
United States v. Nelson Italiano (1990)
ca11 · cites it 3×
“The case of a new indictment, brought after the limitations period has expired, is controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 3288 , which provides that the indictment must be returned within a certain time after the original indictment is found defective: Whenever an indictment is dismissed for…”
United States v. Nicholas Garcia and John O'valle, Jr. (2001)
ca6 · cites it 3×
“As other circuits have held, the practice of tolling the statute of limitations for superseding indictments that do not materially broaden the charges of the original indictment is equally applicable to 18 U.S.C. § 3288 , the statutory provision at issue in this case.”
United States v. Crysopt Corp. (1991)
mdd · cites it 6×
“7 Preliminarily, the Court has considered the savings clause contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3288 , which provides in pertinent part: Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations…”
United States v. Jeffrey Olsen (2022)
ca9
“But after counsel clarified that the applicable extension of the statute of limitations would allow the government to re-file all counts, see 18 U.S.C. § 3288 , the district court expressed doubt that dismissal without prejudice would have “teeth.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.