Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sherman Shelby Shaw and George M. Snellings, Iii,defendants-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 615 F.2d 251
April 8, 1980
Charles C. Trascher, III, Monroe, La., for defendants-appellants in both cases.
Dosite H. Perkins, Ansel M. Stroud, III, Asst. U. S. Attys., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee in both cases.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before TUTTLE, AINSWORTH and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case comes before us on appeals from two separate orders of the district court for the Western District of Louisiana, the Monroe Division. The appeals, which have been consolidated for hearing before this Court, involve two pending criminal cases arising out of the defendants' alleged violations of the federal migratory bird laws, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. In the appeal numbered 79-2022, we affirm the district court's order on the basis of its opinion, see United States v. Shaw, 467 F.Supp. 86 (W.D.La.1979). As to appeal No. 79-2901, we reverse. Although we agree that the prosecution's actions do not constitute a violation of the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, we hold that the filing of the second information occurred under circumstances which indicate that the filing constitutes vindictive prosecution for the particular acts of the defendants described in No. 79-2022. A criminal defendant is entitled to pursue statutory or procedural rights without the fear of vindictive retaliation. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2102, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974).
The judgment in 79-2022 is AFFIRMED. The judgment in 79-2901 is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court with directions that the prosecution be dismissed.