Court Opinion

ID: 9457779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:32:45.491768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:30.331960
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges
(dissenting).
For the reasons expressed in Judge Stevens’ scholarly dissent in United States v. Ponto, No. 18396, and United States v. Grochowski, No. 18874, we conclude that the district judge’s order dismissing the indictment was reviewable here under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. As in Poro-to and Grochowski, Gustavson’s trial never began. There had been no waiver of a jury, and no jurors had been impan-elled. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was understood by all parties to be a pretrial motion and was treated as such. Plainly jeopardy never attached. In view of the majority’s jurisdictional holding, we do not reach the merits.