Opinion ID: 289442
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Successive Prosecutions and Res Judicata.

Text: 42 Williams argues that, since the Government could have proceeded by separate count in No. 107 for the offense charged in No. 233, his prosecution in No. 233 after he had been found guilty in No. 107 amounted to harassment. He urges that one or more of his short special pleas in bar to No. 233 12 should have been sustained. 43 The claim of conspiracy to defraud by means of false and fraudulent statements and the mail frauds of which Williams was convicted in No. 107 were different from the conspiracy to unlawfully manipulate the price of the Westec stock charged in No. 233, and different evidence was required to prove guilt. We can find no harassment, unlawful splitting of conspiracies, 13 former jeopardy, res judicata, or other special defense in bar of the prosecution of No. 233. 44