Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason before the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, and such period will expire within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, 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 at the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, 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. Schneiderman (1952)
casd · cites it 2×
“” And 18 U.S.C. § 3289 provides that: “Whenever an indictment is * * * found * * * insufficient for any cause, before the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, and such period will expire before the end of the next regular term of the court to…”
United States v. Nick Senak (1973)
ca7
“18 U.S.C. § 3289 . Further, we disagree that the Government’s decision not to pursue its appeal precluded the grand jury from returning another indictment on the same matter.”
United States v. William Gilchrist (2000)
ca3
“§ 3289 , which provides, in pertinent part, that: whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason before the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, and such period will expire within six calendar months of the…”
Roy Orlen Hattaway v. United States (1962)
ca5
“18 U.S.C.A. § 3289 . 18 . As to this much needed reform, see the notes to Buies of Criminal Procedure by the Advisory Committee, 4 F.”
United States v. Lytle (1987)
ilnd
“§ 3289 (“Section 3289”) contains an identical saving provision for dismissals that occur “before the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired” but where such expiration will take place within six months after the dismissal.”
United States v. Bortnovsky (1988)
nysd
“Rather, all that would be necessary would be 18 U.S.C. § 3289 , which provides in identical fashion, mutatis mutandis, for what occurs when an indictment is found “defective or insufficient for any cause, before the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has…”
United States v. John Emanuel Panzavecchia (1971)
ca5
“18 U.S.C. § 3289 .” Additional facts will be stated as we discuss the grounds urged by the defendant for reversal of the judgment of conviction on Count Two of the second indictment.”
United States v. Serubo (1980)
paed
“18 U.S.C. § 3289 applies where the dismissal occurs before the applicable statute of limitations runs, but where the statute will run within six months of the dismissal period.”
United States v. Clevon Webster (2025)
ca11
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3289 (“Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason before the period prescribed by the applicable statute of lim- itations has expired, and such period will expire within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of…”
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.